Produced by R. L. Garnett

ESSAYS IN NATURAL HISTORY AND AGRICULTURE.

BY THE LATE THOMAS GARNETT, OF LOW MOOR, CLITHEROE.

LONDON: PRINTED AT THE CHISWICK PRESS. 1883.

CONTENTS.

FACTS AND OBSERVATIONS ON THE SALMON.
Introductory Observations
The Salmon enters and ascends Rivers for other purposes besides
Propagation
Suggestions for an alteration in the Laws regarding Salmon
Artificial Breeding of Fish
Artificial Propagation of Fish
Remarks on a Proposed Bill for the better Preservation of Salmon

LETTERS ON AGRICULTURAL SUBJECTS.
On the Cultivation of Wheat on the same Land in Successive Years
The Cultivation of Wheat
On the Gravelling of Clay Soils
Cotton

PAPERS ON NATURAL HISTORY.
Wrens' Nests
The Long-tailed Titmouse
Identity of the Green with the Wood Sandpiper
The Stoat
The Marsh Titmouse
Creeper
Wrens' Nests
Alarm-note of one Bird understood by other Species of Birds
Dates of the appearance of some Spring Birds in 1832, at Clitheroe
The Rook Serviceable to Man.—Prejudice against it
Sandpipers
On Birds Dressing their Feathers with Oil from a Gland
Mocking powers of the Sedge-warbler
The Water Ouzel
Scolopax, Sabines, Sabine's Snipe
Fish and other River Phenomena
Lampreys
On the Spawning of the Minnow
Eels
On the Possibility of Introducing Salmon into New Zealand and
Australia
On the Formation of Ice at the bottom of Rivers
On the Production of Ice at the bottoms of Rivers
Gossamer

* * * * *

FACTS AND OBSERVATIONS ON THE SALMON.

* * * * *

FACTS AND OBSERVATIONS ON THE SALMON.

In the following observations I intend to offer some remarks on the various migratory fish of the genus Salmo; and then some facts and opinions which tend to show the importance of some change in the laws which are now in force regarding them.

We have first the Salmon; which, in the Ribble, varies in weight from five to thirty pounds. We never see the fish here before May, and then very rarely; a few come in June, July, and August if there are high floods in the river, and about the latter end of September they become tolerably abundant; as the fisheries near the mouth of the river have then ceased for the season, and the Salmon run very freely up the river from that time to the middle or end of December. They begin to spawn at the latter end of October, but the greater part of those that spawn here do so in December. I believe nearer the source of the river they are earlier, but many fish are seen on the spawning beds in January; and I have even seen a pair so late as March; but this last is of very rare occurrence.

Some of the male Kipper (Kelts) come down in December and January, but the greater part of the females remain in the river until April, and they are occasionally seen herding with shoals of Smolts in May. In this state they will take a worm very readily, and are, many of them, caught with the fly in the deeps; but they are unfit to eat, the flesh being white, loose, and insipid; although they have lost the red dingy appearance which they had when about to spawn, and are almost as bright as the fresh fish, their large heads and lank bodies render it sufficiently easy to distinguish them from fish which are only ascending the river, even if the latter were plentiful at this season; but this is unfortunately not the case.

Secondly, we have the Mort. I am not sure whether this fish is what is called the Grilse in Scotland, or whether it is the Sea Trout of that country; it is a handsome fish, weighing from one and a half to three pounds. We first see Morts in June; from that time to the end of September they are plentiful in favourable seasons in the Hodder, a tributary stream of the Ribble, although they are never very numerous in the Ribble above the mouth of that stream. It is the opinion of the fishermen here that this is a distinct species; my own opinion is, that it is a young Salmon, and yet, if I were called upon to give reasons for thinking so, I could not offer any very conclusive ones: the best I have is, that there is no perceptible difference in the fry when going down to sea. It may be said, How do you know that one of the three or four varieties of Smolts which you describe further on, is not the fry of the Mort? To this objection, if made, I say that these varieties exist in the Wharfe, where, owing either to natural or artificial causes, there is never either a Mort or a Sprod (Whitling?) seen.

Thirdly, we have the Sprod, which is, I believe, synonymous with the Whitling, Whiting, or Birling of Scotland. It is a beautiful fish of six or eight ounces in weight, and has more the appearance of the Salmon than the Mort; it seldom ascends the river before July, and, like the Mort, is far more abundant in the Hodder than in the Ribble; this fish sometimes rises pretty freely at the fly, and when it does so, makes a very handsome addition to the angler's basket, but at other times it is difficult to hook, because of its shyness. It disappears in a great measure about September.

Fourthly, we have the Pink, or Par, which is found of two or three sizes in the Ribble; the largest are all males, and in October the milt in them is large; they are small fishes, ranging in weight from about one to three ounces each, and it is well remarked by the author of that delightful book "Wild Sports of the West," they have very much the appearance of Hybrids between the Salmon and the Trout; they rise very freely at the fly and maggot, from July to October, and afford good sport to the angler who is satisfied with catching small fish. I trust I shall be able in the following pages to give some information respecting this fish which will assist in dispelling the mystery in which its natural history has been enveloped.

I will now mention a few of the opinions respecting the various species of the Salmon, and also my own, when they are at variance with the generally received ones, and give the facts and reasonings which have induced me to form those opinions, and I shall be very glad, if I am in error on any of these points, if some one of my readers, better acquainted with the subject than I am, will take the trouble to set me right. It seems to be the opinion of many, indeed of most persons, that the Salmon spawns from November to February, that the young fry, or Smolts, go down to the sea in the April or May following; my own opinion is that they stay in the river much longer. The Grilse is by many believed to be a distinct species, whilst others stoutly maintain that it is a young Salmon.

The testimony of the witnesses from the Severn, the Wye, the Lee, near Cork, and the Ness (see the evidence given before the Select Committees of the House of Commons in 1824 and 1825), would lead one to suppose that the fish were in best season from November to March, whilst the evidence of the witnesses from other parts of the kingdom goes to prove that this is the very worst period for catching them.

One maintains that each river has its own variety of fish, which can be distinguished from the fish of any other river; another contends that there is no such difference; a third states that stake nets are exceedingly injurious to the breed of the fish; and a fourth attests that stake nets only catch the fish when they are in the best season, that neither Kelt nor fry are taken in them, and that if they were prohibited it would only be preserving the fish for the grampuses and seals;—in short, the evidence regarding both their habits, and the best mode of catching them, having in view the preservation and increase of the breed, is so completely contradictory as to leave a doubt in the mind of every one who reads it, and has no other means of forming an opinion. I will endeavour to show in some instances which of the testimonies is correct, and it will be for my readers to judge how far I succeed, and I hope they will be so obliging as to correct any error into which I may fall.

First.—It is my opinion that the fry of Salmon are much older when they leave the river than seems to be generally supposed, and that the growth of this fish is by no means so rapid as it is considered to be by those who have written upon the subject. For several years previous to 1816 the Salmon were unable to ascend into the upper parts of the river Wharfe, being prevented either by the high weirs in the lower parts, or by some other cause, and of course there were no Smolts or Par; but in that year either the incessant rains of that summer or rumours of the formation of an association for the protection of fish, or some other unknown cause, enabled some Salmon to ascend the river, thirty or forty miles, and to spawn there. In the next spring, 1817, there were no Smolts, but about September they began to rise at the very small flies which the anglers use in that river—they were then a little larger than Minnows. In the spring of 1818 there were blue Smolts, or what are generally known as Salmon fry, which went down to the sea in the May of that year; but these were only part of the brood, the females only, the males remaining all that summer, being at the period when the females went down very much smaller than they, and what was called at the Wharfe Grey Smolt and Pinks, or Par elsewhere.

I have shown that there were two migrations from the spawn of 1816; but this was not all—there still remained a few Smolts through the summer of 1819, which by that time were from four to six ounces in weight, and which are known by the anglers there as Brambling Smolts. The blue marks on their sides are very distinct, and the fish is a perfect Smolt, except that it is considerably larger. It is quite different from the Whitling, or Sprod, which is not known in the Wharfe, at least not in the upper parts of that river, whilst the Brambling is never seen in the Ribble. [1]

The Brambling is a beautiful fish, and it rises very freely both at the May fly and the artificial fly through the summer; it is occasionally caught by anglers with the worm on the Salmon spawning beds in the autumn, with the milt perfectly developed, and in a fluid state. Although this fish is not found in the Ribble, so far as my observations and inquiries have gone, I believe that it is found in the Tweed, and perhaps also in other rivers running into the German Ocean; for a letter addressed to Mr. Kennedy, who was chairman of the select committee appointed to investigate this subject, by a Mr. George Houy, states that the Smolts are sometimes found there ten inches long, which he attributes to their not being able to get down at the proper period for want of a flood in the river. But I know that in the Ribble Smolts will go down to the sea without there being a flood at all, if that does not come within ten days or a fortnight of the time at which they usually descend to the sea. I also know that Brambling are found in the Wharfe, in years where there has been no deficiency in that respect; yet why they should be common in that river, when they are never met with in the Ribble, which has ten times as many Salmon and Smolts in it, I am unable to comprehend.

It is my opinion that the ova of the Salmon are not hatched before March or April. Two anglers, who were in April wading in the river Wharfe, came upon a spawning bed, which they had the curiosity to examine; they found a number of ova, in which they could see the young fry already alive, and one of them took these eggs home with him. By regularly and frequently supplying them with fresh water, he succeeded in hatching them, and kept some of the young fishes alive for some time; but they died in consequence of neglect, and were even then very diminutive. The opinion generally received in Scotland seems to be, if I may judge from the evidence given before the House of Commons, that the Smolts go down to the sea in the spring after they are spawned, and that they return in the summer and autumn of the same year as Grilse. When they return, and what size they are on their first visit, I have hitherto been unable to ascertain; but I think I have succeeded in proving that they do not go to the sea so soon as is generally believed, nor do any of the witnesses give their reasons for thinking that they do. I should very much like to learn what evidence they have to offer in behalf of this opinion.

I remember seeing an article in the "Scotsman," perhaps about twelve months ago, in which it was stated that Dr. Knox had made some important discoveries in the natural history of the Salmon and Herring, both in their food and propagation, and, if I recollect aright, it stated that he had ascertained that the eggs remained several months in the gravel, and that then, in a few days or weeks after, they (i.e. the fish hatched from them) were so much grown as to go down to the sea; but none of the data which enabled him to arrive at this conclusion were given, and since then I have heard nothing about the matter. As it is so long since I read this article, I may have quoted it incorrectly, but I believe its substance was what I have stated.

The only conclusive evidence I can find about the hatching of Salmon fry is that of Mr. George Hogarth (second Parl. Report, p. 92), and his account agrees with my own: he states that he took Salmon spawn from the spawning beds, and by keeping it freely supplied with fresh water, he succeeded in hatching some of the eggs; he gives drawings of the appearance of the fry in three or four different stages, from the egg to the age of eight days (see Appendix to second Parl. Report), that the young fry, by keeping them well supplied with fresh water, were very lively and vigorous for three weeks, but that they after this time appeared to grow languid and uneasy, and as they would eat nothing they died when one inch long. Unfortunately he does not state at what time of the year they were hatched, but if this were in March or April, which I see no reason to doubt, it is sufficient to prove that they would not reach the size that Smolts are when they leave the river for the sea; for supposing them to be hatched the last week in March, and that they lived a month, this would bring us to the time when they are about to migrate, at which time they average more than six inches long; many of them are eight inches, and at this period they are fond of feeding upon worms, flies, maggots, and caddis worms, as is known to every schoolboy living on the banks of a river frequented by Salmon. It is also my opinion that neither Salmon nor Trout spawn every year, [2] for Salmon ascend the river as early as January, in the highest condition, with roe in them no bigger than mustard seed: these could not have spawned that season, as the Kelts, particularly the females, do not return to the sea until March or April, [3] and at that time they are in very bad condition, and do not appear to have a particle of spawn in them; and in the evidence of Mr. Mackenzie (see Parl. Rep., p. 21), we have an account of a Grilse Kelt which was caught and marked in March, 1823, and was again caught as a Salmon on its return to the river in March, 1824. In this case the fish had evidently required a residence of twelve months in the sea before it was in a condition to visit the river a second time, and in the Wharfe it is the constant practice of the angler to catch Trout through the winter with very minute roe in them, and in high condition with the worm and Salmon roe, and also with night lines. In fact, one of the fishermen has frequently remarked to me that he occasionally caught dishes of Trout with the fly in January, and in finer condition, than he has found them in April, which he accounted for by saying that the spawned fish (Kelts) of that season had not begun to rise freely at the fly at the former period, but they had at the latter, so that his pannier contained as many Kelts as fresh fish. Another reason has just occurred to me: it is, that in January the spawned fish will still be in the small brooks in which they are so fond of breeding, and of course the bulk of the fish remaining in the river at that time would be fish in good season.

As it is some years since I acquired this information, or at least a part of it, I felt afraid of giving it incorrectly; and I therefore addressed a letter to a friend living on the banks of the Wharfe, requesting him to send me all the information in his possession on this subject, that derived from his own observations, as well as that collected from others. He has since the above was written sent me the following reply:—"I have seen Robinson (one of the best anglers and fly makers between Cornwall and Caithness), and have had some conversation with him on the subject of Salmon, &c. He is of opinion that the spawn of the Salmon remains five months in the gravel before hatching; he examined the spawn in April, and found the young fry alive in the eggs, and Ingham, another angler, took some home and kept one of the Smolts two or three months. I have subsequently seen Ingham, and he has given me the same account. All the fishermen here are of opinion that the female Smolts remain one year, and the males two years, before they go down to the sea. The Bramblings are supposed to be Smolts which remain a year longer than the usual time; they are few in number, and are generally taken with the May fly. I have no doubt that the above opinions are correct, for we have now three distinct sizes of Smolts in the river exclusive of Bramblings, the largest of which are nearly four ounces in weight, and are all males, as they contain milt in October and November. The next are the females of the present year: I have had one since the receipt of your letter, which weighed half an ounce and measured five inches in length; this was a real blue Smolt; the third are the males of the same age, and are much smaller; these are occasionally taken with the worm, and will rise at the fly all the next summer."

"We were for several years, but I do not know the dates, entirely without Salmon, and of course without Smolts; and we invariably found that the Smolts made their appearance the year after the Salmon, but were very small till the second year, when we had what we call blue Smolts, which disappeared in May or June; and what you called Pinks, which remained till the following year; and Brambling Smolts, which remained another year. The fishermen here are also of opinion that neither Salmon nor Trout spawn every year. Robinson says that one day lately (the letter is dated December 13th) he caught seven Trouts, six of which were in good season; and he brought me two the other day, one of which contained roe, and the other was in excellent condition." My friend states, in a subsequent communication, that one of the fishermen had told him that he had caught the male Smolt (Par) more abundantly on the Salmon spawning beds than elsewhere, and my friend adds that the opinion there is, that if a female Salmon gets up to the spawning beds, and if no male accompanies her, yet her eggs are fecundated by the male Smolts; and they allege, in support of this opinion, that a female got up one season and spawned, and though no male was seen near her her eggs were prolific. I mention this, although I apprehend it is evidence which the unbeliever will consider inadmissible, for though no male was seen, still there may have been one, or admitting that one did spawn, without being accompanied by a male, yet another, which contrived to bring her mate along with her, may have spawned in the same place the same season; yet, notwithstanding its liability to these objections, I have no doubt myself that if a female were to come alone her eggs would be impregnated by the Par. It is an excellent maxim, that Nature makes no useless provisions; yet, if we admit that Par are young Salmon, for what purpose is the milt if not to impregnate Salmon roe? and if we deny this to be the fact, we must endeavour to show that there are female Par, but in all my examinations, I have never been able to meet with one that contained roe. That the Grilse are Salmon is proved I think sufficiently by the evidence given before the House of Commons. Mr. Wm. Stephens states (see Rep., p. 52) that he has known Grilse kept in a salt-water pond until they became Salmon, and that fry that had been marked came back that year as Grilse, and the year after as Salmon; and Mr. George Hogarth states that he has often seen a Salmon and a Grilse working together on the spawning beds, as two Salmon, or two Grilse; and Mr. Mackenzie states (page 21) that he, in March, 1823, marked a Grilse Kelt with brass wire, and caught it again in March, 1824, a Salmon of seven pounds weight. The testimony of the witnesses from the Ness, the Severn, the Lee, and some other rivers, is too positive and too well supported to admit of any doubt as to the excellent condition of many of the fish ascending those rivers in November, December, and January—a period when they are out of season, and full of spawn generally, and even when many fish are caught in those rivers in the same unseasonable condition. The fact that there are many fish in fine season in those months may be, I think, accounted for, if we admit that Salmon spawn every other year, which I have I think shown to be very probable; but what it is that induces those fish to ascend rivers so many months before the spawning season, I cannot explain. Probably there may be some quality in the waters of these rivers, all the year, which is congenial to the habits of the fish, while the same quality may only be found during part of the year in others; it is certain that the quality of the waters in rivers generally varies very much with the season: thus the water of the Ribble, after a flood in summer, is always of a dark brown colour, being so coloured by the peat moss over which it passes, while in winter no such tinge can be observed; and there may be other differences with which we are unacquainted; however, whether this is the true reason or not, it certainly cannot be that the fish which spawn in October are impelled by their desire to propagate their species to ascend the river the January before; and if this long residence in fresh water were necessary for the proper development of the ova in one river, we might suppose it would be necessary in all; yet this is not the case, as the red fish which ascend the river in November and December have at that time the spawn in them nearly ready for exclusion.

On one point, about which there is great difference of opinion, viz. whether the fish which are bred in the river generally resort to it again, and whether each river has its own variety of fish, I am not a competent judge, as I am acquainted with too few rivers to pretend to decide. I may, however, just remark that the Hodder, though it is a much smaller river than the Ribble, is always much better stocked with Salmon, Morts, Sprods, Smolts, and Par than is the latter river, which I attribute to the fact that more fish spawn in the river Hodder, which runs for many miles through the Forest of Bowland (the property of the Duke of Buccleuch) and other large estates, and the fish are much better protected there than in the Ribble, where, with one or two exceptions, the properties are very much divided, and few people think it worth their while to trouble themselves on the subject. Dr. Fleming, in his letter to Mr. Kennedy (Appendix to the first Rep., 1825), seems to doubt that Salmon enter rivers for any other purpose than of propagation, but lest I should misrepresent his opinions, I will quote what he has said on the subject:—"In the evidence taken before the Select Committee during the last season of Parliament, and appearing in the report, there are several statements of a somewhat imposing kind, which, as they appear to me to be erroneous and apt to mislead, I shall here take the liberty of opposing." He then enumerates several opinions expressed before the Select Committee, one of which is, that Salmon enter and leave rivers for other purposes than those connected with spawning (see the evidence of Messrs. Little, Halliday, and Johnstone).

First, "That they enter rivers to rid themselves of sea lice (Monoculus piscinus);" secondly, "That they forsake rivers to save themselves from being exhausted by residence in fresh water, and from having their gills devoured by a maggot (Lernaea salmonea)." The whole history of the Salmon contradicts this hypothesis. Another of these errors is, that it is asserted (Rep., 1824, p. 145), "That Salmon always return to the same river;" this is not probable, when we consider the circumstances in which they are placed during their residence in the sea. On the first of these opinions, I am not a competent judge; but I think that the fact that Salmon enter rivers nine or ten months before they are ready to spawn, is of itself sufficient to show that there are other reasons for their entering rivers than those connected with propagation. With respect to the second, I believe that after Salmon have once entered rivers, at least when they have ascended into the upper parts of them, they never offer to descend again until they have spawned. On the third opinion I would remark, that although I do not think that Salmon always come to the same river in which they were bred, yet I think they will do so if they can; and I think that the fact which I have mentioned of the Hodder, a smaller and a tributary stream to the Ribble, containing many more Salmon, as well as more Morts and Sprods, countenances this supposition, for why should the larger number of fish ascend the smaller river except for such a reason?

I am of opinion that Salmon do not grow so fast in the sea as is generally supposed. It is here generally believed that the Smolts, which go down in the spring, come up again in the August or September following, five or six pounds in weight; and George Little, Esq., in his evidence states that as his opinion, but he does not give any other reason for it than this: "That the Grilse that ascend the river in June weigh one and a half or two pounds, and that those which come in September weigh five or six pounds," —but opposed to this supposition is the evidence of Mr. Mackenzie, before referred to (second Parl. Report, p. 21), who states that he caught in March a Grilse Kelt which weighed three and a half pounds, that he marked it with a brass wire, and let it go, and that in the March following he caught it again a Salmon of seven pounds weight. Now a fish which weighed three and a half pounds as a Kelt, would weigh five pounds or six pounds when in high condition the summer before, and if this were so, which I believe all persons who are acquainted with Salmon will admit, the fish would have gained only one pound or two pounds in fifteen or eighteen months. Besides, if Salmon grew as fast as is stated and believed by many persons, the breeds of different years would vary very much in weight, whereas it is known to everybody that we have them of all sizes, from five pounds to forty pounds; and it is contrary to analogy to suppose that a fish which is two or three years in arriving at the weight of as many ounces, should in two or three months acquire as many pounds. There are, however, two or three things about which all persons agree in opinion—one of these is: that the breed of Salmon is decreasing every year, and that the great cause of this decrease is the want of protection, and a consequent destruction in the spawning season. The complaint on this head is universal from north to south; from the Shannon to the Tweed, the cry is—"Protect the breeding fish, or we shall very soon have none to protect." And yet, although the destruction of the spawning fish, and the destruction of the fry in the Spring, are the chief reasons for this alarming falling off, no one seems able to devise a remedy; no one seems inclined to make the necessary sacrifices for so desirable an object, and without these sacrifices it would be absurd to expect the fish to become plentiful; and instead of furnishing an abundant supply of cheap and wholesome food to all classes, which they certainly would do if the fisheries were properly regulated, they will either become wholly extinct, or so rare as to be found only at the tables of the wealthy. James Gillies, in his evidence, states that his brother had in one night killed in the Tweed four hundred Salmon at one landing-place in close time; and all the reports are full of statements showing how unceasing and universal is the persecution the Salmon undergo, not only when in season, but at all times, and most of all when every one should do his utmost to preserve them—I mean when they are spawning. In this neighbourhood the properties generally are so much divided, and so few good fish are allowed to ascend the river, that no one has any interest in protecting them in close time, and the consequence is, as might be expected, that all sorts of contrivances for taking them are resorted to: they are speared and netted in the streams by day and night; they are caught with the fly, they are taken with switch hooks (large hooks fixed to the ends of staves), or with a triple hook fixed to the end of a running line and a salmon rod; if the river becomes low, parties of idle fellows go up each side of it in search of them, and by stoning the deeps, or dragging a horse's skull, or large bone of any kind through them, they compel the fish to side, and there they fall an easy prey, in most cases where the pool is of small extent. In a river so small as the Ribble, it will be readily believed that not many fish can deposit their spawn in safety, when practices of this kind are followed almost openly, and when no one feels a sufficient interest in the matter to put a stop to them. A single party of poachers killed four hundred Salmon in one spawning season near the source of the river; the roe of which, when potted, they sold for L20. Need we be surprised, then, if the breed decreases? The only wonder is that they have not been exterminated long ago.

I may perhaps be allowed to say what, in my opinion, would remedy this alarming destruction, particularly as no one hitherto seems to have devised an efficient preventive. I believe that in 1826 there was an Act of Parliament passed which either repealed or modified some of the old laws on the subject, and I have also understood that the good effects of this new law are already perceptible in Scotland, to which it is exclusively applied. There was a bill introduced into Parliament in 1825 which was intended to apply to the whole kingdom; but some of the clauses were so very objectionable, that if they had been carried they could not possibly have been enforced without stopping and ruining the manufactories which were carried on by water-power, and the bill was consequently abandoned. The first thing to be done is to give the proprietors on the upper part of the river such an interest in the fisheries as will make them anxious about the preservation of the fish in the spawning season; and to accomplish so desirable an object no one ought to fish or keep a net stretched across a river for more than twelve hours each day, or from sunrise to sunset; and every mill-owner ought to be compelled to facilitate the passage of the fish over his weir by every means consistent with the proper supply of water to his wheels. At present the fisheries at the mouths and lower parts of rivers so completely prevent the access of the fish to the upper parts, that unless there happen to be high floods, which prevent the fishermen below from keeping their nets in, the upper proprietors comparatively seldom see any until the season is at an end. The evidence before the House of Commons on this point is exceedingly amusing. One person thinks the upper proprietors have no right to expect any fish, as they have never paid any consideration for them when they bought their estates; another states that he pays L7,000 a year to the Duke of Gordon, and that if he is compelled to observe a weekly (not a daily) close time, he will lose that proportion of his rent; another observes the weekly close time, and opens a passage for the fish, but places a crocodile, painted in very glaring colours, in the gap to frighten them back again; another says he observes the weekly close time in his cruive fishing, but no one is allowed to inspect the cruives; another sends men to break down the stake nets in the estuary, which reach from high to low water-mark, and at the same time stretches a net completely across the river from March to August, so that a fish cannot pass without his permission. No wonder that fish are scarce in the upper parts of the river, when such samples of disinterestedness are manifested by the proprietors of the fisheries below. No wonder that the upper proprietors should be careless about the protection of fish from which they are not allowed to derive any benefit. No wonder that they should connive at, and even encourage, the shameful destruction of fish in close time, since that is the only time they are allowed to have any. Let the fishermen below make it worth the while of the upper proprietors to protect the fish, and they will receive that protection; but it is too much to expect from human nature that these proprietors will take all the odium and trouble of preserving them when others reap all the benefit. There ought to be conservators employed, to see that the fisheries are properly regulated, and these should be paid by an assessment on all the proprietors in proportion to the value of their fisheries.

I should also recommend an extension and uniformity of close time in all the rivers in the kingdom, for although it is an undoubted fact that some clean fish are caught in the river early in the season, yet they are comparatively few in number, and their capture involves that of a far greater number of spawning and Kelt fish, which are not only of no value for the table, but the destruction of which is in effect the destruction of millions of fish which would proceed from them. In the first Parl. Rep., p. 11, Mr. Walter Jamieson says, that in the river Tweed, from January 10th to February 1st, he caught one hundred and twenty-one fish, only one of which had spawned; from February 1st to March 1st he took forty-four fish, twenty-five of which had not spawned —fifteen were Kelts and four were clean fish; from March 1st to March 10th he took seventeen fish, seven of which had not spawned (four of them on the 10th)—six were Kelts and one clean fish. Now the close time varies in almost every river, and some have no close time at all; thus in the Ribble the close time begins on September 15th and ends on December 31st, and in the Hodder there is no legal close time; but there is no practical difference between them in this respect, every one thinking himself entitled to kill all the fish he can, at all times of the year, in both of them. The observance of the weekly close time, that is, opening a passage for the fish from sunset on Saturday night to sunrise on Monday morning, is a mere farce, even if it could not be evaded, as it almost invariably is, for it is well known to every one conversant with the habits of Salmon, that they only ascend the rivers when there are freshes (floods) in them, and in summer the ground is generally so dry, and vegetation absorbs so much moisture, and the evaporation is so great, that it not only requires twice as much rain to produce a flood in the river then as it does in winter, but when the rain does come its effects are only visible in the river for a short time. I have known a strong fresh in the Ribble in the morning, and the river low again in the afternoon of the same day. A fresh coming at the beginning of a week, would disappear long before the close of it, unless the rainy weather continued; and thus the strict observance of the weekly close time would be of little service to the upper proprietors unless the fresh came at the right end of the week.

The Smolts and the Par ought to be protected as strictly as the Salmon; and there ought to be a penalty attached to the killing of them, or having them in possession, and conservators of rivers ought to have the power of inspecting all mills and manufactories driven by those rivers, to ascertain that they have no contrivances for taking the fry on their way to the sea, as it appears that in some rivers they are taken in large quantities. There ought also to be a penalty attached to the killing of Kelt fish, which in that state are not only tasteless and insipid, but actually unwholesome; yet they are pursued and destroyed with as much avidity as the fresh fish, and a very small number of the few that spawn in safety ever return to the sea. A penalty ought also to be inflicted for selling, buying, using, or having in possession Salmon roe, either in a fresh or salted state, as its excellence as a bait for Trout and Eels, and the consequent high price at which it sells, are sufficient temptations to poachers to kill the Salmon in the spawning season even if they could not sell or use any other part. Yet destructive as this practice is, there is an extensive trade in this article— a fishing-tackle maker in Liverpool having told a friend of mine that he sold 300 lbs. in a season, which, supposing every egg to hatch, would produce perhaps five times as many Salmon as are caught in one year throughout the whole kingdom. [4]

In concluding this imperfect sketch, I may remark that I have omitted many things concerning the natural history and habits of the Salmon, fearing to trespass too much on the patience of my readers; but I have wished, in addition to communicating some facts in the natural history of this fish, which I believe are not generally known, to call the attention of the public to the present state of the Salmon fisheries in England. Many of the preceding observations are founded on the evidence of persons connected with the fisheries in Scotland, and are perhaps no longer applicable to that part of the kingdom, since there has been an alteration in the laws; whether this is the case or not, I have no present means of ascertaining. I shall be glad if any one having a knowledge of the subject will say what benefit, if any, has been derived from the alteration; however, it is sufficient for my present purpose to show what is the state of things when there are no laws on the subject, or, which is the same thing, when there is no attention paid to them; a state of things which, instead of promoting an abundant supply of these excellent fish, and rendering the Salmon fisheries nationally important, tends by the habitual disregard of the laws by one party, the selfishness of another, and the neglect of a third, to render these fisheries of little and decreasing value; whereas if the lower proprietors would allow a tolerable supply of Salmon to come up the river when they were worth taking, and the upper ones would preserve them during close time, there would be plenty for each and for all.

I am aware it will be difficult to legislate upon this subject without injury to what is of infinitely greater importance—I mean the manufactories of the country. The absurd and impracticable clauses which were contained in the bill for the protection of the fisheries, which was introduced into Parliament in 1825, show this; yet notwithstanding this difficulty, I think it is possible to protect the fish without interfering with the interest of the mill-owners, and to make such laws on the subject as will be effectual, without calling forth a single objection from any unprejudiced person. I shall be glad if what I have said on this subject should induce any gentleman to turn his attention to it. There must be many whose opportunities of observation will enable them to determine whatever is doubtful in the natural history of the Salmon tribe; whose experience will teach them the defects and absurdities of the present laws on the fisheries; and whose influence will, if they can be induced to exert it, materially contribute to their amendment.

CLITHEROE, January, 1834.

* * * * *

THE SALMON ENTERS AND ASCENDS RIVERS FOR OTHER PURPOSES BESIDES PROPAGATION. [5]

In addition to the objections which I have offered to the seeming doubt of Dr. Fleming, whether Salmon enter rivers for any other purpose besides propagation, the following have come to mind; and though they do not apply to the Salmon, they confirm me in the opinion that there are reasons, of which we know nothing, for fish ascending rivers, which are not at all connected with propagation. One is the habit of what is here called streaming. In the winter the fish not engaged in spawning (I speak of Trout, Grayling, Chub, Dace, &c.) leave the streams and go into deep water; either because the water is warmer there, or because they there find more food; and it is well known to fly-fishers that they do not catch many fish in the streams if they begin early, say in February. It is proverbial here that fish begin to stream when the great grey, or what is called in other districts the devil or dule crook, and in March brown or brown drake, comes upon the water; and I have seen Trout by scores leaping at a weir in the beginning of May, whether in search of food or an instinct implanted in them to keep all parts equally stocked with them, I do not know; but it has certainly nothing to do with their spawning. Is it presumptuous to suppose that God in His providence has implanted this instinct in Salmon for our good, that we might have a supply of excellent food, which without this would be in a great measure unattainable? Whether this is the true cause, and the only one, I am unable to determine; but this is the effect produced, and in the absence of other reasons it is, in my opinion, one that ought to be admitted. Another reason why fish ascend rivers is their impatience of heat. I speak now more particularly of Grayling; if the weather is very hot at the end of May or the beginning of June, the Grayling in the Wharfe (they are almost unknown in this part of the Ribble) ascend the mill streams by hundreds, and go up the wheel races as far as they can get, and stay there until the stoppage of the wheels (many a ducking have I had in pursuit of them), when they are obliged to beat a retreat, and this often proves a disastrous one to many of them. The ascent of young Eels by millions, and the ascent of the Flounder, are neither of them connected with the propagation of their kind, and though I cannot say for what purposes they do ascend, I am, I think, justified in doubting assertions which seem to have nothing to support them but the positive manner in which they are made.

The Salmon Par is neither a Hybrid nor a distinct species of the genus Salmo, but a state of the common Salmon. The author of "Wild Sports of the West" says of the Par, as I have noted previously, "That it has very much the appearance of a Hybrid between the Salmon and the Trout, and (in a note) that the natural history of this fish is doubtful. Some conjecture that it is a Hybrid between the Salmon and Trout, because it is only found in rivers which are frequented by Salmon. Others think it a cross breed between the sea Trout and river Trout," and then he speaks of this "hybridous diminutive," as if he thought one of these opinions was correct. That the Par is not the result of a cross between a sea Trout and a river Trout, is proved by the fact that there are no sea Trouts in the Wharfe, the Par (admitting it to be a distinct species, which I do not), the Salmon, and common Trout being the only kinds of Salmonidae which are found in that river, at least where I am acquainted with it. If the Par be the result of a cross between the Salmon and the Trout, what becomes of it in the spring, and where are all the Par, which were so abundant in October, gone to in April? Did they migrate to the sea, the shoals would be met with by somebody; and did they stay in the river they would be caught at one time or other. However, as it is well known that neither of these cases is ever realized, we must suppose another, which I have already done in my former communication. In fact, in angling in the beginning of March, fish are often caught which would puzzle the most experienced fisherman to determine whether they are Par or Smolts, especially after they have been caught some time; and in a large number caught at that time there are all the intermediate shades of appearance between the perfect Par and the real blue Smolt.

CLITHEROE, May 29th, 1834.

* * * * *

CLITHEROE, March 18th, 1846.

TO MR. PAKINGTON (LORD HAMPTON).

SIR,—Through the polite attention of Mr. Cardwell I have been favoured with a copy of your bill—"For the better preservation of Salmon." As this is a subject to which I have paid some attention, I trust it will not be deemed impertinent if I offer some suggestions for your consideration with regard to the free gap. It appears to me that it will be desirable to specify the width and depth of this free gap, or it may on the one hand degenerate into a mouse-hole, or on the other hand the surveyor, by the provisions of the 13th section of the Act, may insist on such a gap being made that the whole of the water may be diverted through it, which in small rivers, where there are ancient and legal hecks or cruives for the purpose of taking Salmon, will destroy the value of the fishery. Then, with regard to fence time:—In the 6th section of the Act, I presume you do not intend that night fishing shall be allowed at any season of the year; but it appears to me that the expressions in the 6th section would scarcely prevent the owners of cruives from keeping them open, as they need not go near them between sunset and sunrise, and then they will neither lay, draw, nor fish with any net, device, or engine. Would it not be better to expressly insist upon all cruive fisheries being positively closed from sunset to sunrise? or, what would be still better, that the cruive or heck should have a free gap in it, of a specified size, which should be kept constantly open between sunset and sunrise. As this is one of the most important sections of the Act, I may be pardoned for calling your particular attention to it; for unless this section be vigorously enforced, it will be in vain to legislate on the subject;—for the proprietors near the sources of rivers (where most of the fish spawn) will never interest themselves about the preservation of fish which they are not allowed to see when in season, and which has hitherto been the case in this neighbourhood at all events; but if the fish are allowed a free passage everywhere, and at all times, between sunset and sunrise, the upper proprietors will then have some inducement to take care of the fish in the spawning season. Until now, all the good fish have been taken in the fisheries near the mouth of the river.

There is at present a great trade carried on in this neighbourhood in Salmon roe, as a bait for Trout and Eels, and scores of spawning Salmon are now destroyed for little else than the spawn they contain. Cannot this be prevented?

* * * * *

May 5th, 1846.

H. GEORGE, ESQ.

SIR,—I enclose a letter I had addressed to Mr. Pakington on the subject of the preservation of the breed of Salmon. I had written to him because I perceived that he had introduced the bill into the House of Commons, but since that letter was written I have been favoured with your address through the politeness of Sir Thomas Winnington, to a friend of mine, and as he requests that any suggestion about weirs may be addressed to you, I make no apology for enclosing the letter I had addressed to Mr. Pakington with some further suggestions, which on looking over my letter I find I have omitted to notice.

In one of the clauses of the bill (I do not remember which, and I have not the bill at hand to refer to) you require that a grating, the bars of which shall not be more than three inches distant from each other, and which shall be placed at the junction of the tail- goit with the river, as well as in front of the wheel. This I presume is to prevent any fish being injured by the wheels, but I assure you that during the twenty-two years in which I have had the management of the works here, I never knew an instance of a Salmon being either killed or hurt by the wheels. Indeed, I do not know half-a-dozen instances of Salmon ever ascending the tail-goit to the wheel, and I must have seen many instances if this was a common occurrence. This may, however, happen, and the fish may be occasionally injured where there is much fall lost, and a strong stream running from a wheel constituted in the old way with open float boards. But the objections to such a plan on the part of the manufacturers will be insuperable, in fact, the accumulation of sticks and leaves in the autumn, and ice in the winter, will be so great at the grating in the tail-goit, that the wheels will be thrown into back water and the works stopped, and all this loss and inconvenience will be incurred because of the possibility of a Salmon being killed or hurt by the wheel. There is not much probability of this frequently happening, because, as I said in my other letter, Salmon seldom migrate except where there are freshes in the rivers, and then there is so much water flowing down the usual course of the stream, that the fish have no inducement to leave it to seek for a passage elsewhere. I would, however, suggest that power be given to conservators to go at all times up the tail-goits and into the wheelhouses, to see that there are no illegal contrivances in them for catching the Salmon and Smolts in their migration, as I have certainly heard of such things occurring.

In Sir Thomas Winnington's note to my friend, he says we have difficulty enough in endeavouring to obtain support for one day's clear course; two we could not carry, however desirable. Allow me to suggest, that in endeavouring to carry so little you rouse up your opponents, while there is not enough to stimulate the zeal of your friends, for it will be in vain to look for the zealous co- operation of the proprietors on the upper part of rivers unless you give them some inducement. This one day in the week will not effect, and besides this, you make it illegal to catch Smolts, even with the rod, which is destroying one of the greatest amusements of the anglers, and depriving them of the most delicate of fish, and for no object: because, if the provisions of your bill are carried (without this clause), there will be an abundant supply of fish for all purposes, even after the anglers have enjoyed their sport. I do not see the propriety and utility of prohibiting the killing of Smolts, because if they lived they would become Salmon, any more than I see the propriety of prohibiting the eating of eggs, because if they were hatched and lived long enough they would become barn-door fowls.

Let the legislature and the estuary fisheries give the upper proprietors a fair share of Salmon when in season, and they will be glad to see the angling for Smolts abolished; but it is rather too bad for the estuary fisheries to catch all the good Salmon, and then grudge to the upper proprietors the angling for Smolts.

In conclusion, allow me to urge on you the propriety of endeavouring to obtain such a bill as will give the proprietors of land on the upper parts of rivers a strong inducement to support you, and at the same time that it does this will not injure the mill-owners; and, with the modifications I have pointed out, I think this may be accomplished. I speak on this subject as a practical man, having some knowledge of the habits of Salmon, and superintending a mill driven by water-power which employs nearly a thousand people; so that if a bill like yours could be worked in a satisfactory manner here, on so small a stream as the Ribble, it may anywhere in the kingdom. But if you make a tinkering job of it, and ask for too little, you will rouse your opponents and discourage your friends. By all means go for a free passage for the fish every night from sunset to sunrise in all cases where this does not interfere with manufactories, and then there will be some inducement to support you.

I refer you to some papers which I wrote on this subject in the Magazine of Natural History, in the year 1834, and if you think it worth while to ask for further information on the subject, I shall be happy to give you any I may possess.

* * * * *

LOW MOOR, July 1st, 1846.

To the Editor of "The Times."

The attempt which is now making to amend the laws relating to the Salmon fisheries, appears to run such a great risk of failure, from the opposition of interested persons, that I think a short sketch of the defects of the present laws and their effects on the breed of fish, and a comparison of them with the proposed amendment, may be interesting to some of your readers, and may, perhaps, induce some influential gentlemen to throw their influence into the right scale, in the approaching discussion on this subject.

The Salmon fisheries in former times appear to have supplied food for a large portion of the people, as there are still traditions current on the banks of various rivers in the north, that the indentures of apprenticeship always stipulated that the apprentice should not be compelled to eat Salmon more frequently than three days a week, and however exaggerated this story may appear at the present day, I hope to succeed in showing that it is neither improbable that it has been so, nor impossible that it may be so again,—if good laws are made for their protection, and these laws are properly enforced. At present there is no doubt the fisheries are rapidly declining, and in some rivers which used to have a good many Salmon in them, and which used to swarm with Smolts (or fry) in the spring within my remembrance, they are now rarely seen. To show their scarcity I may mention a circumstance which occurred in the Wharfe, which was formerly one of the finest rivers in Yorkshire for Salmon. A few years ago a pair of Salmon were seen on a spawning bed in the Wharfe, about forty miles from its mouth. This became known at the anglers' club, and it was deemed so important to preserve them, that the club divided themselves into three or four watches, and guarded the spawning bed night and day, whilst the fish were spawning, and this spawning lasted about a week.

Here in the Ribble the Salmon fisheries are not quite so near extinction (though they are rapidly progressing in that direction), for although we are very seldom allowed to see or catch fish in seasonable condition, a good many come up the river to spawn, though very few of them ever do so, and very few of those that do ever reach the sea again. The reason is obvious, no one here has any interest in preserving the spawning fish, and they are openly killed by the poachers, who never dream of being prosecuted for it. I am credibly informed that in a stream not five hundred yards from where I write, sixty spawning fish were killed last winter. Some years ago one gang of poachers killed three hundred Salmon on the spawning beds in one season, and sold potted Salmon roe (which is a most destructive bait for Trout) to the value of L20.

In the Lune the proprietors of the fisheries near Lancaster sent men to protect the spawning fish in the streams above; but these men were warned off by the landed proprietors, who said, If you catch all the good fish you must at least allow us to catch the bad ones. In the Tweed and its tributaries it used to be quite as bad (what the new Scotch law has done I do not know), but a poacher who gave evidence before the Committee of the House of Commons in 1825 said that he had assisted to take four hundred Salmon at one haul in close time in the Tweed.

Sir Walter Scott's vivid description of burning the water, which occurs in "Guy Mannering," shows that he knew how to kill Salmon in close time. In fact, his account, and that of Hogg (the Ettrick Shepherd), show that both were regular black fishers.

There are various devices for killing the fish in close time: they are speared, netted, and hooked on the spawning beds, and when the rivers get low, gangs of idle fellows range up and down on the banks, stoning and beating the water by poles, or, what is more effective still, a large bone, or horse's skull, and by fastening a cord to it, one end of which is passed to each side of the river, they draw this skull up and down in the pools where they know there are Salmon, and the fish are so foolish and timid, that they thrust their heads under any stone or cover they can find, and are taken without trouble; it being common enough in such cases to slip a noose over the tail, then tightening it, and the fish is hauled out immediately.

Then again, gentlemen who want to have the reputation of being skilful anglers, employ their game-keepers to find the Kippers (Scottice Kelts) or spawned fish in the pools, which is a very easy matter in low water, and dropping a hook baited with a lob worm before their noses, it is greedily taken, and the poor fish (which are unfit for food) are caught. It is then trumpeted forth to the angling world that Mr. A. B. has had splendid sport—he has caught a dozen Salmon with the rod in a single day, meaning it to be understood that these fish have been caught with the fly. I by no means uphold these practices, neither do I think them very deserving of censure in the present state of the law, for all the good fish are taken near the mouths of the rivers.

This leads me to consider the defects of the present law, which is by no means adapted to protect and increase the breed of Salmon.

In the first place, the close time is too short. It commences in the Ribble nominally (for in reality the fish are openly killed all the year through) on the 15th September, and ends on the 31st of December; whereas it ought to extend to the end of April, for the following reasons. A very large proportion of the fish are spawning in January and February, and I have even seen a spawning fish as late as the 3rd of April. In the evidence given before the House of Commons in 1825, it was proved by a fisherman from the Tweed, that in March for one clean fish that was caught there were ten caught that were not so, as they were either fish that had not spawned, or Kelts, that is, fish which have finished spawning but have not returned to the sea, and are then flabby, unwholesome, and unfit for food. A very large proportion of these Kippers or Kelts do not go to the sea until April, and not then without there is a fresh in the river, for, like the Smolts, they seem disposed to remain in the rivers until they can avail themselves of the assistance of a flood, to enable them more easily to reach the sea.

Another defect in the present law is that it fails to secure a supply of good fish to the upper proprietors. There are no provisions in it (or they are not enforced) for giving the fish a free passage, no prohibition of nets, traps, or devices for stopping them in their progress up the rivers. No daily or weekly close time, but everywhere there is so short-sighted a selfishness, that it is completely realizing the fable of the man who killed the goose which laid the golden egg. The fisheries are declining so rapidly, that unless something is done, and done quickly, the breed of Salmon will be extinct in the rivers in this neighbourhood.

Again, there is no power to appoint or pay conservators, and without their assistance there is no chance of preserving Salmon in the spawning beds. Game-keepers are most certainly not to be depended upon.

In pointing out the defects of the present laws I have, in fact, given an opinion how they should be remedied. I would extend the close time from the end of September to the end of April. I would establish a daily close time, allowing no net, device, or engine to be employed in taking Salmon between sunset and sunrise above tideway in any river; and below, I would only allow nets to be set for twelve hours per diem. I would appoint conservators, whom I would pay by a tax on the fisheries on the whole course of the river, which tax should be determined by a valuation of the fisheries, and paid accordingly. I would fine every one who sold, used, or had in his possession any potted or prepared Salmon roe for the purpose of angling, and I would give conservators the power of examining all mill goits and races, for the purpose of seeing that no unfair practices were resorted to for the taking of Salmon or Salmon fry; and I would give the upper proprietors the power of making any alterations in mill weirs and dams which did not impair their stability or the efficiency of the water power. If some such enactments as these were made and properly enforced, there is no doubt Salmon would swarm in every river, for their fecundity is such, that a very few Salmon spawning in a river under favourable circumstances stock it abundantly with Smolts. A large Salmon having not less than 25,000 eggs in it, how soon, with a little forbearance and care, would every river swarm with this delicious fish, even to such a degree as to be a cheap food for the poor! But to obtain such results it must be made the interest of every person to protect them.

In reading over the evidence on the Salmon fisheries, which was given before the House of Commons in 1825, I was exceedingly amused by the reasons given by the tenants of some of the fisheries in Scotland why there should be no weekly close time, and the shifts and evasions practiced by others. One said he paid L7,000 a year rent to the Duke of Gordon for his fishery, and if one day in the week were allowed for close time he would lose L1,000 a year. Another said he kept the close time, but he would allow nobody to go and see whether he kept the free gap open or not. Another proved that he kept open the free passage, but it was also proved that he had a crocodile placed in the gap, painted with very glaring colours, in order to frighten back any fish that attempted to pass. Another sent his boats to break down the stake nets which were set in the estuary, but acknowledged that he kept his own nets set across the river day and night. There would be no difficulty in stocking every suitable river in the kingdom with Salmon, either by putting into them a few pairs of breeding fish, or by artificially fecundating the eggs, and placing them in artificial spawning beds. It is a plan I have frequently adopted, and sometimes successfully; but in other experiments I have failed, from the difficulty of choosing a suitable locality in the river. If too rapid a stream was chosen, the eggs and gravel were all washed away; and if too calm and still a place was selected, the gravel was filled up with sand and mud, and the eggs rotted instead of hatching. I am even of opinion that where there is already a breed of Salmon fry in a river, it is not absolutely necessary that any male Salmon should come up the river in the spawning season, the male Par, or Penks, as we call them in the Ribble, being sufficient to fecundate the eggs. If this is doubted, I would ask how it happens that in the autumn they have fluid milt in them? for as nature makes no unnecessary provisions, for what purpose is this, if not to provide for the possibility of a female Salmon coming alone? These Pars swarm on the Salmon spawning beds.

* * * * *

SUGGESTIONS FOR AN ALTERATION IN THE LAWS REGARDING SALMON.

CLITHEROE, October 12th, 1851.

To the Editor of the "Gardeners' Chronicle."

As the amusement of fly-fishing is one which holds a first place in the opinion of every one who understands it, and as the Trout and the Salmon are the only fish which afford genuine sport to the angler, and as I believe that the latter in some of the southern counties is nearly extinct, whilst the former is far from being abundant, I wish to call the attention of such of your readers as are possessed by the true piscatorial furor, to the facility with which these fish can be bred artificially. And as many experiments have been made under my direction, and having witnessed the results, I unhesitatingly say that there is little risk of failure, if due care be taken.

The experiments of Shaw and Agassiz, my own also included, have proved that fish can be bred artificially. The experiments of Boccius I have not yet tried, although he proposes to arrive at the same result in another manner, and acting in the manner recommended by them, Trout and Salmon have been bred by thousands during the last ten years.

As the season for making the experiment will shortly be here, I hope that those who intend to try the plan will lose no time in looking after their supply of breeding fish.

To begin with Trout:—Catch as many as you can conveniently obtain upon the spawning beds, [6] and examine them carefully one by one, to see that the spawn and milt are in a fit state for exclusion; and also to enable you to separate the males from the females. If they are in a fit state to be operated upon (which may be known by the facility with which the milt and the roe run from them on a slight pressure), squeeze the milt of the males into a little water, and when you have obtained all the milt you can get, add so much water that the mixture remains slightly opalescent—say about equal in colour to a tablespoonful of milk mixed in a quart of water; pour this into a deep dish or bowl, large enough to hold the largest of your female Trouts; take one of these and put it into the water so prepared, and gently squeeze the roe from it whilst the vent is immersed in the water. [7] Do this as quickly as possible, and return the fish into fresh water, and then pour off the water containing the impregnated roe, through a strainer, carefully preserving it for the remaining fish, and immediately return the roe into fresh spring or brook water. Repeat the operation for every female Trout, and you will then have a quantity of impregnated roe, which if properly managed will hatch with great certainty. Have ready as many boxes as you are able to stock with spawn (three feet long, two feet broad, and six inches deep). Fill them to the depth of two inches of river sand, which ought to be previously so well washed that there is not a particle of mud left in it, and upon that put two inches of river gravel, also exceedingly well washed, the pebbles varying in size from a hazel nut to a pigeon or pullet's egg. These boxes must be so placed that the water from a spring will flow into the first, and from the surface of that into the second, and below the whole nest of boxes there ought to be a small reservoir made—say three yards by two and eighteen inches deep, and well gravelled at the bottom. All these matters having been previously arranged, and the water flowing nicely over the gravel, sprinkle the impregnated roe equally over the surface of the gravel, say a quarter of a pint to each box, and it will roll down into the interstices of the gravel and find a bed in which it will remain snugly until the spring, when, about March, if all has been properly managed, you will find, on a careful examination, that the young Trout are coming to life by hundreds. I am very particular in recommending spring rather than brook water, for several reasons. In the first place, brooks are liable to be flooded, and are sometimes so overcharged with sand and mud that the gravel in the spawning-boxes is completely choked with it and the spawn is lost, as I know to my great and frequent disappointments. At other times all is washed away together. In the second place, the gravel of brooks swarms with water-lice (shrimps) and the larvae of aquatic insects, as well as bull-heads and loaches, all of which prey upon the spawn of the Trout and Salmon. In the third place, if you put your spawning-boxes in a brook, you will find it difficult to prevent the escape of the fry when hatched, and you are left in doubt as to the success of your experiment. With spring water all these inconveniences are avoided. But if your watercourse should contain water-lice or aquatic larvae, it is a very easy matter to destroy them before putting in your boxes, with a little salt or quicklime. It is also desirable to cover your spawning-boxes with a wire grating, to exclude the light, and to protect them in severe weather from the chance of being frozen.

When they begin to hatch, open a communication between the boxes and the little reservoir below, and if this communicates with a watercourse in which aquatic plants are growing, so much the better. The fry, as soon as they are strong enough, will make their way into this ditch, and will find abundance of food among the water plants; thence they ought to be able to make their way into the brook, river, or lake which it is intended to store with them. All ducks, wild and tame, should be driven from this ditch, or few of the Trout will be allowed to find their way to their final place of destination.

These rules, with some modification, are applicable to the breeding of Salmon as well as Trout; the only difference being in the mode of placing the female fish, when obtaining the roe, and the size of the gravel in which the spawn is deposited in the boxes. The Salmon is too large a fish to put into the vessels in which the diluted milt is placed, but I think that she should be held by an assistant, in such a manner that the tail and lower part of the body up to the vent are immersed in the water containing the milt. And it is also very necessary to hold her firmly, otherwise a large fish, in the struggles which it makes to get free, is apt to upset the vessel containing the milt, and then the experiment is at an end, at least for the time. Being held firmly by the assistant, as above stated, the belly of the fish must be gently pressed by the hands to promote the exclusion of the spawn, which on exclusion must be gently stirred in the diluted milt, to bring every grain into contact with it; but the roe ought not to remain in contact with the milt a minute, if it can sooner be got out, as I have found that if the diluted milt be too strong, or if the ova remain too long in contact with it, they become opaque, and never hatch at all, apparently because they are over-impregnated. In the ordinary way in which Salmon and Trout are bred, the milt must be largely diluted with water, and the contact between the milt and ova can only be momentary, for the streams in which these fish spawn (particularly the Salmon) are so rapid, that the milt on exclusion must be carried away immediately.

There is another method, which is preferred by Ramsbottom, to the one I have been describing, and it is certainly less troublesome. This is to take the ova from the female fish in the first place (taking care to exclude the air from it, by immersing the fish into water up to the vent), and when all the roe has been collected into a large bowl or basin, then mix the milt with it, the same diluted in the proportion which has been before described, namely, until the water which covers the roe becomes lightly opalescent.

I am quite aware that there is another theory which assumes that impregnation takes place twelve months before the exclusion of the ova. [8] But a very careful and long continued examination of the spawning of minnows and lampreys (I have never been able closely to examine the spawning of Salmon), convinces me that it is not a correct one. Besides, did any one ever succeed in hatching the ova of a fish which had not been allowed to come in contact with milt after exclusion? If they have, when, where, and how has this been accomplished, and where is it recorded? I know that I could never succeed, although I have often tried the experiment. On the other hand, it is the easiest thing imaginable, with due care and a suitable situation, to hatch those which have been properly impregnated after exclusion. But if, to avoid argument, I admit that this theory is correct, it will not at all interfere with artificial breeding of Trout and Salmon; on the contrary, it will materially facilitate it. It will only be necessary to catch female fish with the ova ready for exclusion, and place these ova in clean gravel in a box, as before described, but there will be no occasion for males. But supposing Trout and Salmon can be bred in this manner, which I by no means believe, there would be no means of breeding hybrids, which I consider a far more important achievement, and to which I will now refer.

Ever since my attention was turned to the artificial breeding of fish, it has always appeared to me exceedingly desirable and important to breed hybrids between the Trout and the Salmon. The fry of the Salmon, which, by-the-bye, is perhaps the most delicately flavoured fish that exists in this country, although it lives and thrives in fresh water for two or three years, if kept in a locality where it cannot escape to the sea, yet, if kept longer than that time, pines away and dies. If, therefore, we could obtain a hybrid fish, bred between the river Trout and the Salmon, we should probably produce a fish which, being a mule, would be always in good condition; being crossed with a river fish, it would probably never require a visit to salt water to keep it in good health. Being crossed with a Salmon, it ought to get to a good size in a comparatively short period; and, if it would rise at the artificial fly, or the minnow, ought to afford first-rate sport to the angler.

There does not appear to be a greater specific difference between the Trout and the Salmon than there is between the horse and the ass, between the mallard and the musk duck, or between a cabbage and a turnip. But hitherto, in all my experiments, I have never succeeded in producing a hybrid between the Trout and the Salmon. [9] Yet I do not despair of doing so, for there was always a something to complain of, and to doubt about, in every one I tried, and I still think I shall succeed by perseverance. Even if I shall succeed, the result may not prove quite so favourable as I anticipate, but may turn out as unfortunately as the marriage of the gentleman in the story, which relates that, being good- tempered but ugly himself, he married a handsome ill-tempered wife, hoping that his children would have his good-temper and their mother's good looks; but when they came, they were as ugly as the father and as ill-tempered as the mother. So it may prove with these hybrids—they may not always thrive in fresh water; they may not grow to a good size; they may not rise at the artificial fly; they may be worthless for the table. Nevertheless, it is desirable if possible that this should be ascertained. The progeny of a male Salmon and a female Trout may be much better or much worse fitted for a continual residence in fresh water than the descendants of a male Trout and a female Salmon; but this can only be determined by experiment. Dr. Lindley says, in his introduction to the "Guide to the Orchard," that in the cross fertilization of fruits, the seedlings always partake more of the character of the male than of the female parent. But I believe that in breeding mules it is found more desirable that the father should be an ass than a horse. In my poultry yard I breed hybrids between the musk duck and the common duck, and I find that I have a much better progeny from the musk drake and the common duck than from the common drake and the musk duck. In the latter cross, although the males are fine birds, the females are not larger than a widgeon, and fly about almost like wild ducks. This may not always be the case, but it has proved so with me.

But to return to the fish. If any gentleman who is interested in such matters will do me the honour to read this paper, and wishes for further information on the subject, I shall be happy to give it, so far as I am able. Very sure I am that the sportsman who once fairly starts as a fly-fisher, and is so fortunate as to hook a Salmon or a large Trout, will thenceforward despise or lightly esteem corks and floats, ground-bait and trimmers, punts and Perch fishing, and will fairly wish them all exchanged for a nice stream well stocked with Trout—as a gentleman lately said to me, fly- fishing is a perfect infatuation! He was quite right. The extreme avidity with which it is followed by the thoroughly initiated, can only be explained on that supposition; to the casual observer, there does not appear to be any strong excitement in it. But that is a great mistake. Let me get to the bank of a river well stocked with Trout in a good humour, early in the morning, and I feel neither hunger, thirst, nor fatigue if I fish until dark without tasting of anything. And the excitement of hooking a ten or twelve pound Salmon is not much inferior to that produced by a long run after the hounds.

I cannot conclude without calling the attention of all interested, and who are able to render assistance in remedying the evil, to the great falling off in the quantity of fish there is in all the Salmon rivers in England. With those in Scotland and Ireland I am not acquainted, but believe that matters are not in a much better state there. I believe that the unsatisfactory state of the laws has a great deal to do with this decline in the value of the fisheries, and I also believe that it is quite possible so to alter the law as to very greatly improve them, and that without improperly interfering with what is of far more importance—I mean the manufactories of the country. As the law stands at present the proprietors of the upper parts of rivers have not the slightest interest in the preservation of the fish in the breeding season, for, as they are seldom allowed to see a fish when it is fit for the table, why should they look after the poachers in close time? Why should they be put to much expense and trouble, as well as the risk of the lives of their game-keepers, merely to breed fish for the proprietors of stake nets and estuary fisheries, who don't spend a farthing in the preservation of the fish when breeding, and yet reap all the benefit? I had occasion, some years ago, to examine the evidence on this subject given before the House of Commons in 1825, and was exceedingly amused at the schemes resorted to to evade the law, moderate and inefficient as was the law at that time. (Since then the law has been altered both in Scotland and Ireland, but I do not know what are the provisions, nor what has been the effect of the new law.) It required that there should be a free passage for the fish (Salmon) through all the traps, nets, weirs, and devices that were used to catch or detain them, from sunset on Saturday night to sunrise on Monday morning. One man said he paid L7,000 a year for his fishery, and should lose one-seventh of his catch. Another said he allowed a free passage on Sundays, but would not permit anybody to go and examine for themselves. A third proved that he allowed the fish a free passage on Sundays, but his neighbours proved that he placed in the gap a crocodile, painted red. And a fourth was convicted of breaking down the stake nets in the estuary of a river—at the same time he had a net stretched entirely across the river above, both day and night. And so with many others, every one striving with all his might to kill the goose that laid the golden eggs.

This is not the way to improve the Salmon fisheries. To do this effectually the upper proprietors must have a strong interest in the preservation of the breeding of fish, and in order to give them this interest they ought to have an ample supply of fish when they are in the best condition; but to give them this supply the law ought to be altered. At present I believe the law does not require a free passage for the fish (at least in English rivers) except from Saturday night to Monday morning; in many of them I believe this is not insisted upon; whereas the law ought to prohibit fishing for or obstructing the passage of the fish every night from sunset to sunrise, and this regulation ought to be rigorously enforced. This would give the upper proprietors a chance of having good fish, and a corresponding inducement to take care of them. Nobody would be so much benefited as the owners of fisheries at the mouths of rivers; they would be the first takers, and would still get the lion's share of all the fish that ascended the river. If this regulation were enforced, the expenses of conservators might be defrayed by levying a small tax, in the shape of a licence for angling, which all true sportsmen would be glad to pay if it gave a reasonable prospect of a well-stocked river. Now matters are getting worse every day, and notwithstanding the enormous fecundity of the Salmon (a large one producing 25,000 ova in a season), they are now extinct in some rivers where they used to be found in my recollection, and in others where they were once abundant they are now very scarce. No one need to wonder at this, when he is told that gangs of poachers are on the look-out for them all through the spawning season. In one winter, some years ago, I am credibly informed that two hundred Salmon were taken in one stream within five hundred yards of the spot where I am now writing. It is nobody's business and nobody's interest to prevent this, and therefore it goes on openly night and day.

Are there no influential gentlemen in the House of Commons who will take up this matter and endeavour to get an equitable and comprehensive law passed for the preservation and increase of the breed of Salmon? It is a matter of even national importance, and if duly provided for and properly attended to, I see no improbability in the supposition that Salmon would again be as abundant as they were when the apprentices on the banks of the Ribble stipulated that they should not be compelled to eat Salmon oftener than three days in the week. The apathy of country gentlemen in this matter is to me unaccountable. I have some reason to believe, however, that Government have at all times been so far from lending their influence to the promotion of any attempts to amend these laws, that they have obstructed rather than assisted them, most probably from an idea that the preservation of the fish would interfere with manufactories. If I thought that this would be the case, I should not say a word on the subject; but I am very far from holding such an opinion. So far from this being the case, I assert without hesitation that weirs need form no obstruction to the free passage of fish, and that without impairing the efficiency of the water power. With the poisonous and filthy mixtures sent by some manufactories down the rivers, the case is far different, and where this is done the case is hopeless. Salmon and Trout will rapidly disappear from such rivers, never to be seen there again, so long as these noxious contaminations are permitted to flow into them.

* * * * *

ARTIFICIAL BREEDING OF FISH.

CLITHEROE, December 26th, 1853.

To the Editor of the "Manchester Guardian."

SIR,—I have read with some interest the letter of your correspondent, Salmo Salar, on the artificial breeding of fish; and knowing, as I do, the great interest which the writer feels in the preservation and increase of his namesakes, I shall be most happy if my humble efforts in the same cause throw any more light on the same subject, and in any degree contribute to the same end.

But Mr. Salmo Salar is quite wrong in saying that, with the exceptions of the experiments made on the banks of the Hodder, by Ramsbottom, no efforts have been made to increase the number of Salmon by providing artificial breeding-places. Passing over my own numerous experiments here for the last fourteen or fifteen years (which you, Sir, are aware of, though the fishing world is not), I may refer to the extensive experiments made by Mr. Fawkes, of Farnley, in 1841 and 1842, and renewed again in 1848 and 1849; and the whole of which (with the exception of a portion of these in 1842) were successful. The experiments of Salmo Salar were not made until 1851 and 1852, and were intended merely to test the accuracy of an assumption that the impregnation of the ova takes place long prior to their exclusion; which experiments terminated in a complete failure. Salmo Salar says that the quantity of Salmon fry in the river is enormous; and that he has caught five pounds of them in a single pool in a single day. I have known three times that quantity caught in the same way. But still this proves nothing at all, for it is well known that almost all migratory animals, however solitary their general habits may be, are gregarious at the time of migration. Witness swallows, fieldfares, and even woodcocks. Witness also the clouds of small Eels ascending the rivers in May and June; and if we are to believe the accounts of travellers, the enormous flocks of antelopes in Africa, and of bisons in America, are proofs of the same general law. No doubt Salmo Salar will find, as he says, that the Samlets are exceedingly abundant in some of the pools, when they have flocked together for the purpose of migration; but he may perhaps travel for miles either up or down the river before he will find any more. It is notorious that, in the tributaries of the Hodder, they are walled in, in many places, for the purpose of detaining them, that unscrupulous anglers may get as many of them as possible before they go to the sea. Salmo Salar is in error also when he says that Ramsbottom deposited 40,000 in the ponds of Galway, of which 20,000 are expected to be fruitful. The fact is, that he deposited 40,000 in December, 1852, of which above 20,000 are now alive and in the ponds, varying from four to five inches long to two or three, notwithstanding that experiment was made under very unfavourable circumstances; for there was so much mud in the stream that supplied the spawning-boxes, that when Ramsbottom left Galway he was afraid all the ova would be choked by it.

Salmo Salar seems to think that almost all the ova deposited naturally come to life, and that very few of those deposited artificially do so. This, however, is quite contrary to my experience, and I think that if Salmo Salar will listen to the evidence he will change his opinion. It is well known that Salmon are very fond of particular streams, their instinct no doubt informing them which are suitable to their purpose; and when one pair of fish have finished spawning, another pair will come and occupy the same place. Now, what takes place under such circumstances? The ova which were deposited by the first pair are rooted up by the second, and their specific gravity is so near that of the water, that they roll down out of the loose gravel and are picked up by the Trouts, Par, and other fish that are always lying in wait just below for that purpose. When Ramsbottom was in Galway he caught a large Trout, out of whose throat he squeezed a thousand ova, which were deposited in a spawning-box, many of which came to life notwithstanding the pit they had escaped from. The extraordinary avidity with which Trout take Salmon roe as a bait is also a proof (if that were needed) of their preying upon it in the spawning beds. Yet, in addition to them, are all the Par, Bullheads, Eels, Loaches, and aquatic larvae which may be found swarming in every spawning bed by any one who will look for them. In addition to these enemies, millions of the ova are destroyed by being washed away by heavy floods, and as many more are destroyed by being choked with mud and sand in the spawning beds as well as by being left dry at low water owing to the Salmon spawning in places which frequently become quite dry in early spring. No doubt many of the Salmon fry when they have reached the sea are destroyed by enemies there, of which we know nothing. But still, if 500,000 are bred, in addition to all that are reared naturally, it will represent a larger proportion of the whole than Salmo Salar seems to suppose; otherwise, how is it that in rivers where Salmon are protected, or still more in unsettled countries, the Salmon are so numerous? The Salmon in the Columbia river, on the north-west coast of America, are cast dead upon the shores by myriads after the spawning season, and these are merely the fish dying from exhaustion, as a small portion always do here. How numerous, then, are those which ascend the river to spawn, and go down again to the sea afterwards! No doubt the grand object to be attained is to make Salmon abundant, and the most important step towards the attainment of this object will be to give an efficient protection to the spawning fish, and the only way to do this effectually is to give the upper proprietors of rivers such an interest in the Salmon fisheries as will make them worth attention. At present this is far from being the case. Now the upper proprietors are merely considered as so many clucking hens, whose business and whose duty it is to hatch Salmon for the proprietors of fisheries at the mouths of rivers, who do not in many cases spend a farthing in their protection when spawning, and who grievously begrudge the upper proprietors every fish that is able to pass their nets and other engines of destruction. Let the upper proprietors of Salmon rivers bestir themselves so to amend the law as to give them a chance of having a supply of Salmon when they are in season. They cannot and will not have a more efficient ally than Salmo Salar. Salmo Salar is in my opinion quite right when he says that the fish kept in ponds will not be quite so well able to take care of themselves as fish which have been bred and lived all their lives in the river. Nor do I think that this is necessary for any longer period than until the young fry get rid of the umbilical vessel; after which they are quite able to take care of themselves. Before that time they are scarcely able to move, and thousands of them fall a prey, not only to the other fish, but to the larvae of aquatic insects which prey upon them very greedily. As I happen to know from my own observations, the larva of the stone fly (May fly of Lancashire) and those of all the larger ephemera (drakes), to say nothing of the fresh-water shrimps, swarm in all the spawning beds, and no doubt destroy myriads of the ova. All these would be saved by proper precautions and well formed spawning-boxes, with good supplies of spring water to feed them.

I think Salmo Salar has very greatly over-estimated the quantity of Salmon fry that go down to the sea from the rivers. He speaks of them going down by millions. Now we will take the river Hodder as a river with which both Salmo Salar and myself are well acquainted, and I will venture to say that, so far is this an over-estimate, that if he would take the hundredth part of the number he would be much nearer the truth. The Samlets when they go to the sea may be reckoned to weigh eight to the pound, and two millions would at that rate weigh one hundred and ten tons. Does Salmo Salar think that one ton and a tenth of Smolts go down the river Hodder to the sea on an average of years? I have more favourable means of judging of the quantity that go down the river Ribble than I have of those of the Hodder, and I believe I should very greatly exaggerate their numbers if I estimated them at any such weight as a fourth of that quantity. Again, the Hodder and the Ribble are, in some respects, far more favourable for spawning than many other rivers; for partly owing to the country through which they pass, and partly owing to the rapidity of their streams, the gravel is large and very suitable for spawning in; there is also far less mud and sand in them, and the spawning beds are much less liable to be choked up than they are in many other rivers. No doubt the Salmon will make the best selection in their power, but they can only select from such places as there are; and if those are not suitable the ova must be in a great measure destroyed. Since Ramsbottom returned from Scotland he has visited the river Dee, about forty miles from Chester, and there he found the spawning beds (ridds as Salmo Salar calls them) silted up with mud and sand, and the ova buried in them to the depth of eighteen inches. How or when were the newly hatched fish (supposing, which is very improbable, that they ever did hatch) to make their escape from such a heap of filth? It would be quite impossible.

In conclusion, it seems desirable and quite necessary to say a few words as to the priority of discovery of this process of fish propagation. The French claim it; the Irish seem to claim it; the Messrs. Ashworth take great credit for it; and now Salmo Salar says he first suggested it. Allow me, as there are so many claimants in the field, to suggest one or two more. In the year 1832, without knowing that such a thing had ever been done or even thought of, I made some experiments on the spawning of fish and the artificial impregnation of their ova, which I communicated to "Loudon's Magazine of Natural History," in which they appeared. After that came the Duke of Buccleuch's game-keeper, Shaw, whose experiments were both satisfactory and conclusive. This was in 1836 or 1838. Then after my experiments at home, I induced Mr. Fawkes to take up the matter in 1841, and they were resumed in 1842, and again in 1848 and 1849, both with Salmon and Trout. It was at this period that Ramsbottom came into the field. At Mr. Fawkes's request I instructed him in the art, and sent him to Farnley, where he was perfectly successful; and since then, I believe he has had more experience and been more successful than any other propagator in the kingdom.

The principle of this system is very easily comprehended; but success depends on many niceties of manipulation, and much experience in judging whether the fish, both male and female, are in the proper condition for operating upon.

This experience is not gained without much practice. This practice Ramsbottom has in great perfection. There is no doubt the artificial breeding of fish will be found exceedingly beneficial, if properly carried out; and I hope to see the time when Salmo Salar may catch half-a-dozen of his namesakes at Whitewell, any good day in the season.

I am, Sir,
Yours very truly,
THOMAS GARNETT.

* * * * *

ARTIFICIAL BREEDING OF FISH—(CONTINUED).

CLITHEROE, 9th January, 1854.

To the Editor of the "Manchester Guardian."

SIR,—As I believe that Salmo Salar is quite as desirous of increasing the breed of Salmon as myself, the controversy between us may be reduced to very narrow limits. He believes that Trout eat very few of the Salmon ova, and therefore cannot do much harm. I will just mention a few facts which make me think otherwise. When Ramsbottom was in Galway he caught in one night twenty-five Trout on the spawning ground, which had on the average not less than five hundred ova in each of their stomachs; from one of their throats he squeezed a thousand. As the net would not take a fish of less than two pounds, how many had passed through it? When he was at Knowlmere, in sweeping the river for spawning fish he caught nine Par, two Trouts, and a Sprod on the spawning bed, all of which were gorged with Salmon spawn; when he went into the brooks there he never found a pair of Trout spawning without also finding a number of smaller fish behind, some of which he caught, and in all such cases found them gorged with roe up to the throat; the male Trout would occasionally drive them off, but as soon as he returned to the female they were again close in the rear.

In the "Perthshire Courier" of the 22nd December is the following statement: The men employed in taking the breeding fish secured a Whitling on Tuesday about three-quarters of a pound, and as they observed Salmon ova coming out of his mouth he was brought to the office of Mr. Buist for examination; on being opened, upwards of three hundred impregnated Salmon ova were taken from his stomach quite undigested. It may be, therefore, fairly presumed, that this youngster had taken this quantity for his breakfast; if he dined and breakfasted in the same style each day during the breeding season, it is difficult to estimate the expense of his keep. Such is the amount of loss of impregnated roe in one morning from one trifling fish; what must it be throughout the season from the various enemies it has to encounter?

Salmo Salar is facetious about the destruction of the roe by insects, and says, "because an aquatic insect will devour a minnow's egg, which is not as large as a pin's head, we have no right to infer that it will devour that of a Salmon, which is as large as a pea; it would be just as reasonable to suppose that because a wasp feasts upon a cherry, or a strawberry, therefore he will eat a turnip or a mangold wurtzel." As he seems to have made a slip of the pen in naming the two last fruits, allow me to supply what I suppose he meant to say, which I presume was that because a wasp eats a cherry or a strawberry, we must not therefore infer that he will either eat a pear or a plum; if that is his meaning, I think I can understand it. If he adheres to his own version, I would merely observe that there is no analogy in the two cases. But the inference does not rest upon mere supposition; the freshwater shrimps at Knowlmere were seen devouring the ova in the spawning-boxes. We have seen above that Par eat ova as well as Trout. Let us suppose that the millions of Smolts (as Par) have only one meal each of Salmon roe, and we will stint them to twenty ova apiece. I fear that very few of the five millions which Salmo Salar says are deposited in the Hodder will be left to grow into Salmon. In addition to these, ducks, both wild and tame, eat them greedily. When Ramsbottom was in Galway he saw that the tame ducks frequented the spawning ford, and the superintendent bought one, and found its crop quite full of Salmon roe. If this had been buried eighteen inches in the gravel (as Salmo Salar suggests), the duck would have had some difficulty in extracting it; but so far as my experience goes, it is not usually one-half that depth, although this varies in different rivers. Then, if one Salmon is able to plough up gravel which is cemented together by sand and long continuance in one place, why should not another be able to do the same when the gravel is loose and easily removed? But there is another enemy whom Salmo Salar has not mentioned, who does more harm than all the rest: that is the poacher, and I fear that many of the Salmon which Salmo Salar saw spawning in the Hodder and its tributaries have since then made a journey overland. At all events, I am credibly informed that in one season a gang of poachers took seventy Salmon in the Hodder. Is he sure they have taken none this season? Salmo Salar seems to think that one pair of Salmon will not spawn on the same ground, which has been previously occupied by another pair; but he has only to watch the same ridd for a week or two to be convinced he is mistaken. As to fish refusing to spawn on new gravel, I may state that when Mr. Fawkes was making his experiments at Farnley he put some new gravel into his brook, and there were sixteen pairs of Trout spawning on it the next morning. Salmo Salar says that if he can have those simple checks which he enumerates to the present practices, he will restore abundance of Salmon to the Ribble; they are all very good in their way, but do not go quite far enough, and they would do very little good without a fourth, namely, protection from the poacher for the fish on the spawning beds. Until this can be given more efficiently than it is at present, all the rest will be unavailing; and until the upper proprietors can have a greater interest in the preservation of Salmon than they now have, they cannot be expected to give themselves much trouble on the subject.

My readers would not be much edified by strong assertion and counter-assertion of what Trout do, and what they cannot do; nor is it probable that where we differ we should convince each other; neither do I see any occasion for personality, when both parties are actuated by the same motives—a desire to see the Salmon fisheries restored to a state of great prosperity. I therefore avoid noticing some of Salmo Salar's remarks, which seem to me a little tinged with this spirit, and hope we shall be able to act in concert for the attainment of that desirable result. Salmo Salar will find that the number of Smolts is not always determined by the quantity of ova deposited: if he will examine the bed of the Hodder the next low water, he will find many of the ridds disturbed by the ice floods of yesterday; and if he doubts this, I shall be happy to examine them along with him, if he will give me previous notice of his intention.

Since the above was written I have seen Ramsbottom, who tells me that the stream in the Tay, where he caught the whole of the fish from which he obtained 300,000 to 400,000 ova, was on one side of it one continuous ridd, and that the fish could not avoid ploughing up the gravel which previous fish had spawned in, and at Oughterard, where 300 pairs of fish spawned in the same number of yards, it was the same; and they found thousands of ova buried so deep that they were rotting in great quantities.

With regard to what Salmo Salar says about the infrequency of a veritable spawning bed being washed away by floods, I refer him to what I have said previously; but Ramsbottom tells me the game- keeper at Harden (Haworth) will be able to give him sufficient proof that in the Langden Brook this has occurred, as he found the ova on the dry land by thousands, which had been left there by the flood.

When Ramsbottom was at Perth he found on one of the fords, a space of twenty yards long and fourteen yards wide, filled with ridds, which was entirely left dry. What would become of all the spawn deposited there?

Salmo Salar seems to think nature is quite sufficient to take care of her own interests without our interference, and that without some counter-acting influence to keep the breed of fish in check, the river would not hold all that would be bred. I quite agree with him in this, provided nature had fair play; but she has not, and occasionally needs a little help: else why do we employ game- keepers to trap cats, foxes, and weasels, to shoot hawks, carrion crows, and magpies, and to breed pheasants, as well as to prevent poaching? If these precautions are unnecessary, why go to such expense? and if they are necessary for hares and birds, may they not be also for fish?

I hope Salmo Salar will investigate what I said about walling in of the Smolts in Langden Brook. I fancy he may have seen these enclosures himself; at all events, I have, and although I cannot prove they were erected for that purpose, I do not doubt the accuracy of my information.

I am, Sir,
Yours very truly,
THOMAS GARNETT.

* * * * *

The following letter was sent to me from Chester:—

CHESTER, 3rd February, 1854.

SIR,—We are about to make application to Parliament for a Commission of Inquiry into the state of laws respecting the fisheries of England and Wales. And Mr. Ashworth, of Poynton, has been so good as to refer me to you, as able and willing to furnish us with information on the subject.

The annual meeting of the river Dee fishery association will be held on the 20th instant, when I purpose to lay before them the draft of a petition to Parliament for their approval.

I am anxious in the meantime to obtain all the information possible relative to the working of the present laws, their defects, and the alterations to be proposed in them, in order that a condensed statement may be embodied in the petition as the ground of our application.

I should be exceedingly obliged for any remarks your experience may suggest, and trust you will accept the cause which dictates my writing as a sufficient apology for troubling you on the subject.

I have had great pleasure in reading your able replies to Salmo Salar's letters. On the appearance of the first, I was strongly prompted to reply to it myself, but rejoiced to find him in much better hands.

I remain, Sir,
Yours very truly,
WILLIAM AYRTON.

* * * * *

CLITHEROE, 4th February, 1854.

TO WM. AYRTON, ESQ.

DEAR SIR,—I am favoured with your letter of yesterday, and shall be glad to give you any information I may possess on the habits of Salmon, or the requirements of any act of Parliament necessary for the preservation and increase of this valuable fish. Being a mill- owner, I have interests which are supposed to clash with those of fish preservers; but I hope to be able to show that all mill- owners are able to give a passage over their weirs at all times when the fish are inclined to run; that is, when there are freshes in the river. I say this the more confidently, as I believe the works here are the largest in England for the power of the stream they stand upon, and I find it necessary to employ 150 horse-power of steam. Yet I find from a careful register, which has been kept here since the year 1838, that we are able, without interfering with the efficiency of the water power, to give the fish a passage over the weir 181 days, or part of days, annually, and this at times when alone they are disposed to avail themselves of such a passage—that is in floods.

The suggestions that occur to me from time to time I will not fail to send you. At present the following seem to me to be essential, to give efficacy to any Act of Parliament framed for the purpose of preserving and increasing the breed of Salmon, for without some such provisions the gentlemen on the upper parts of rivers will have no inducement to exert themselves in the matter.

First.—No nets or other engines, except rod and line, should be used for taking fish from six o'clock at night to six o'clock in the morning, and all fish should be allowed a free passage up the stream every night when this does not destroy or impair the efficacy of the water power.

Second.—No mill-owner nor his servants, nor any other person, should be allowed to take fish at his weir, or within fifty yards of it.

Third.—Conservators should be allowed to go into all wheel-races, wheel-houses and tail-goits, and also upon all lands on the banks of Salmon rivers, as well as inspect all cruives, weirs, &c., without being deemed guilty of trespass.

Fourth.—All weirs kept solely for fishing purposes, cruives, &c., should be compelled to give a free passage to the fish every night from six o'clock to six o'clock in the morning; and any obstruction placed in the gap calculated to hinder or frighten the fish back, should be deemed breaches of the Act of Parliament and liable to a penalty.

Fifth.—All nets and other devices for catching Eels should be prohibited in April, May, and June.

Sixth.—Close time should be altered and extended, as well as made uniform, in all rivers.

Seventh.—The sale and use of Salmon roe should be prohibited.

Eighth.—Justices should be enabled to assist the passage of fish over weirs by any contrivance which did not impair their stability nor the efficiency of the water power.

Ninth.—All cruives should be formed of vertical bars, and should have the intervening spaces to measure not less than three inches.

Tenth.—No nets used in a Salmon river should measure in the mesh less than two inches and a half from knot to knot.

Eleventh.—Any person having no right of fishing found with a net in his possession or a Salmon out of season, should be guilty of misdemeanour.

Twelfth.—A ten shillings' licence for angling for Salmon.

The reasons for most of these suggestions will be obvious to you, but there are some which may not be so; I will therefore give a short comment on such.

Third and fourth.—The conservators shall have the right to inspect all wheel-races, cruives, &c., to see they are properly regulated, and also to see that no contrivance is used to drive the fish back. In the evidence given before the House of Commons in 1825, it was proved that the lessee of a fishery in Scotland used to place a crocodile painted red in the king's gap, which the law compelled him to give from Saturday night till Monday morning.

Fifth.—The prohibition to set Eel nets in April, May, and June is to prevent the destruction of Smolts when going down to the sea.

Seventh.—Salmon are destroyed here when spawning chiefly for the sake of the roe. If a man were fined for selling it or having it in his possession, this inducement would be weakened.

Eleventh.—There is the same reason for seizing the net of the black fisher that there is for seizing the snare of the poacher, and if the latter can be convicted for having hares or snares in his possession, I do not see why the former should not for having nets and Salmon.

A meeting of the gentlemen interested in the fisheries of the Ribble and the Hodder will be held on Friday, the 17th instant, previous to which time I should be glad of your criticism.

I am, dear Sir,
Yours very truly,
THOMAS GARNETT.

P.S.—It occurs to me since closing my letter that I have forgotten one important provision required in any new Act of Parliament—namely, protection to the Smolts in their downward migration. Here the pools are swept with small meshed trammel nets of all the fish that they contain.

* * * * *

ARTIFICIAL PROPAGATION OF FISH.

CLITHEROE, 23rd April, 1863.

To the Editors of the "Leeds Mercury."

GENTLEMEN,—I am somewhat at a loss to understand the object of Mr. Horsfall's letter on this subject which appears in the "Mercury" of to-day. If he means that fish hatched by this process are as much at the mercy of their natural enemies as they are in their natural spawning beds I differ from him entirely; but if he means that there is no good in breeding migratory fish like Salmon, when the obstacles to their return in the shape of stake nets, impassable weirs, and poisonous waters are so numerous as they are at present in many rivers (the Wharfe and the Aire are examples of both), I entirely agree with him. Let us consider both suppositions, for the more this subject is ventilated the more likely is good to arise from the discussion. I think Mr. Horsfall is entirely wrong in the first supposition, for the following reasons: By artificial propagation the young fish escape all damage from floods, and particularly ice floods, which scoop out all the loose gravel from the spawning beds, which are frequently entirely carried away by these floods. They escape all danger from drought, which in some rivers is almost as bad, there being now several mounds of dry gravel in my length of the Ribble which were spawning grounds last December. They escape being destroyed as ova by Trout, Eels, Bullheads, Loaches, the larva of aquatic insects, ducks (wild and tame), water rats, and water shrews. The last are said to be destructive to the spawn; but this I do not vouch for, as these two last-mentioned animals have not come under my own observation as devourers of spawn.

With regard to the 500 Salmon ova said to have been taken from the stomach of a Trout, Ramsbottom is the authority for it, only he says there were nearer 1,000 than 500, and he took them from the maw of a large lake Trout at Oughterard, when netting the spawning Salmon for his artificial propagation. When Ramsbottom was fish breeding for Mr. Peel the year after he first went to Ireland for that purpose, he went into the brooks at night with a light. He never found a pair of spawning fish without also finding several waiters on Providence in the shape of small Trout, which were picking up the ova that descended the streams towards them. Several of these he caught, and they were perfectly gorged with spawn.

With regard to the ducks, Ramsbottom is again my authority. He found that a flock of tame ducks frequented the spawning beds at Oughterard; he bought one for the purpose of ascertaining whether they eat spawn or not, and he found its crop quite full of spawn. With regard to the aquatic larvae of insects, Mr. Horsfall may easily satisfy himself that they destroy spawn if he will turn some into an artificial spawning bed. One of my friends failed to hatch his Trout ova because he could not keep out the fresh-water shrimps.

Mr. Horsfall seems to think that nature would be sufficient to take care of her own interests if man did not step in to aid her endeavours; but if he is a sportsman he no doubt has a game- keeper, who not only preserves the ground from poachers, but traps cats and weasels, shoots hawks, magpies and carrion crows, breeds tame pheasants, and generally looks to the well being of the game without trusting to the efforts of unassisted nature.

Let us take the second supposition, that there is no good in artificial propagation when the fish which are sent to the sea can never come back again by reason of insurmountable obstacles. If Mr. Horsfall means this he is quite right; there is no good in the upper proprietors of Salmon rivers becoming brood hens for the owners of fisheries at the mouths of rivers or the proprietors of impassable weirs, who take all the fish which get to the foot of these weirs. I quite agree with Mr. Horsfall that it is in most cases easy to build practicable fish passes, and at a slight expense, if people were willing to do so; but I wish to show that notwithstanding the boasted effects of the Act of 1861, the upper riparian proprietors have not a sufficient inducement to build fish passes, and will not do so unless the expense can be made very moderate indeed.

I will take the river Ribble to illustrate my meaning. As a general rule we have no fresh run Salmon until May, and the upper proprietors are supposed to have a sufficient share of the fish that ascend the stream if the owners of the fisheries in the estuary and the tidal part of the river cease to net from six o'clock on the Saturday night to six o'clock on the Monday morning. That is a day and a half per week. The fishing for Salmon (except angling) ceases on the 31st of August, and from the 1st of May to the 31st of August there are 123 days. Call the period eighteen weeks, which gives us twenty-seven days during which time the Salmon have liberty to pass to the upper parts of the river. But on the average of seasons, owing to droughts, the rapid absorption of moisture by vegetation, and the great evaporation, there is no fresh water to enable the fish to ascend during two- thirds of that time. Every one who knows anything of the habits of Salmon is aware that they never ascend the rivers from the estuary unless there is a fresh in the river; and, as I said before, on the average of seasons there is no fresh for two-thirds of the time from May to August. This reduces the twenty-seven days (which are supposed to feed the upper proprietors with Salmon to repletion) to nine days, and these nine days are expected to stock the river and its tributaries for one hundred miles. It is true I have not taken into consideration the privileges which the upper proprietors have of angling to the 1st of November; but besides the fact that the fish are then full of spawn, and ought not to be killed at all, very few rise at the fly, and when they are taken they can neither be sold nor used by any one who knows what a fresh Salmon is. It is a greater crime against public polity to kill a spawning Salmon than it is to steal a sheep; for, supposing it produces 10,000 ova, and one in a hundred returns as a Salmon, it returns from a place (the sea) where it has cost nothing in rent, taxes, or superintendence, and, in the finest condition imaginable, it invites us to take it.

Mr. Horsfall and I both wish for the same results (rivers swarming with fish), and although we may somewhat differ as to details, I have no doubt both would be glad to see public attention directed to these matters rather more than it is at present.

If Mr. Horsfall will do me the honour to come and see me, I will show him an efficient fish-pass which has been in operation forty years. It may suggest some ideas to him, and he may be able to suggest some improvements in it which I should be glad to receive.

I am, Gentlemen,
Your obedient Servant,
THOMAS GARNETT.

* * * * *

LOW MOOR, 4th January, 1865.

DEAR SIR,—As I believe Mr. Eden, the Commissioner of Salmon fisheries, is visiting various districts connected with Salmon rivers in England and Wales, with a view of explaining the proposed alterations and additions to the bill of 1861, and as I think from what I have learnt that the proposed alterations and additions will not be satisfactory to the upper proprietors of Salmon rivers, I wish to call your attention to the matter, that, if he should come into this district, the gentlemen interested may be able to point out to him how far these alterations are from meeting their wishes. Supposing that the new bill (as published in the "Field" newspaper, and explained and commented on by Mr. Eden) is to be understood as a government measure and one in which they will allow of no alterations, I maintain that it is very objectionable both from what it omits and what it purposes to do.

To begin with the former, or, in other words, to take the recommendations of the Worcester meeting as the groundwork of new legislation, it does not touch on several of them; they were, so far as I remember (for I have no memoranda to refer to) an extension of the weekly and annual close time—minimum penalties: —a close time for Trout, and a right of way on the banks of Salmon rivers for all water-bailiffs, duly appointed, without their being deemed guilty of trespass; and a tax on fishery nets and implements, for the purpose of defraying the expenses of protection.

Now, so far as I understand the bill as proposed, the only one of these recommendations included in it is the tax. I am wrong in this—the taxation is not included in the bill, but was suggested by Mr. Eden at the meeting he attended lately at Chester. The bill proposes that the choice of conservators shall be vested in the magistrates at quarter sessions, and the conservators shall have power to expend all the funds raised by voluntary subscriptions for certain purposes mentioned in the act. But Mr. Eden suggested at Chester that if these funds were inadequate the conservators should have the power of supplementing them by a rate on the owners and lessees of fisheries in proportion to their extent. Now one man may have an estate on the banks of a river extending for miles from which he derives little or no revenue; while another may have a fishery not extending more yards than the other does miles, but from which he derives a revenue of as many pounds as the other does pence. If Mr. Eden's meaning is lineal extent, I feel very sure it will not meet with the approval of the upper riparian proprietors. Again, why should the magistrates in quarter sessions (nine-tenths of whom know nothing of Salmon or Salmon rivers) choose the conservators? What, for instance, would the magistrates meeting at Wakefield know of the Ribble or the Hodder? What would they care about the matter? They would choose the men who had power to tax the riparian proprietors and lessees; but as they would not be taxed themselves, they would look on with great composure. No; if we are to be taxed, let us tax ourselves, and not leave it to those who will have no interest in the matter, and who may involve us in litigation and expense over which we shall have no control.

The recommendations of the Worcester committee deserved more consideration on the part of Government. They were suggested by men of great experience, and, moreover, unless they are adopted and legalized by Parliament there can be no permanent prosperity for Salmon rivers. Take the extension of close time as an instance. It cannot be right that the owners or lessees of estuary fisheries shall be allowed to take ninety per cent. of the fish which they have neither bred nor fed, and whose well-being and increase they have done nothing to promote; while the upper proprietors, on whom devolve all the care, trouble, and expense, are to rest satisfied with what the thirty-six hours per week can give them. What did they give the upper proprietors on the Ribble and the Hodder last season? Little or nothing. When the bill of 1861 was before the House of Commons, I had an opportunity of suggesting (indirectly) to the late Sir George Cornewall Lewis the propriety and desirableness of an extension of the weekly close time for the benefit of the upper proprietors. He replied, "You might as well propose to restrict the shooting of partridges to three days a week as to restrict the netting of Salmon." But with all due deference to so great an authority, there is no analogy between the two cases. If partridges had all to migrate and return before they could be legally shot, and had, like the Salmon, all to return by the same road, ninety per cent. of them before reaching the district where they were reared would become the prey of men who had neither bred nor fed them. I fancy sportsmen would want protection for them; and if they were not able to obtain it, they would do what is seriously proposed by many people with regard to the Salmon—they would do all they could to exterminate them, rather than continue to act as brood hens to hatch chickens for other men's eating.

Then take the annual close time and the pretended compensation it offers in the two months' rod-fishing (September and October). After the nets have been withdrawn, what is it worth? Or, what is the value of black fish full of spawn? They cannot be sold; they are not fit to eat; the spawn has nearly arrived at maturity, and the only value the fish has is in the spawn, which is potted and sold in many instances by the poacher who kills the fish. He deserves no other name, whatever may be his rank or station.

Again, in the 21st section, regulating the weekly close time, it is enacted "That any person acting in contravention of this section shall forfeit all the fish taken by him, and any net or movable instrument used by him in taking the same, and, in addition thereto, shall incur a penalty of not exceeding five pounds, and a further penalty of not exceeding one pound for each fish." But in the 17th section, which regulates the annual close time, though there is a penalty for the contravention and forfeiture of the Salmon so taken, there is no forfeiture of nets and implements. You will no doubt remember how this worked when the watchers took a net and boat, near Preston, last season, after the setting in of the annual close time. How the owner of the net and boat came to claim them, on the pretence that the net had been stolen from the bank, where it had been left to dry, although his own men were the parties who were so illegally using them.

Minimum penalties.—I see no mention of them in the new bill, although it is notorious that many magistrates have fined convicted poachers in the penalty of a farthing or a shilling. What is this but an encouragement to do so again?

Close time for Trout.—This is greatly needed in Salmon rivers, as it is well known that many a poacher pretends to be fishing for Trout when he is looking after Salmon. This is doubly needed when the Salmon ascend the small tributaries to spawn.

The right of way for water bailiffs.—There is no clause or section in the new bill giving the right of way on the banks of Salmon rivers to duly authorized persons without their being deemed guilty of trespass. But there is one by which they are permitted to examine weirs. There is on my part no objection to this examination, but why are millowners stigmatized by being subjected to exceptional legislation? Are not the gamekeepers of gentlemen who have many miles of river subject to no surveillance on the part of the water bailiffs as likely to act illegally as the servants of the millowners? Let both be watched with equal care, and I do not mind how vigilant the watching may be; but I do object to being made the object of special and exceptional legislation. The tax ought to be upon nets and rods and other implements in proportion to their value. But if a tax is laid on the extent of the fishery, we may bid adieu to voluntary subscriptions.

In conclusion, if Mr. Eden comes into this district, I think it ought to be distinctly intimated to him that no bill would be satisfactory to the upper proprietors which did not give them a greater interest in the increase and improvement of rivers. There are three ways of doing this. The mesh of the Salmon net might be enlarged from eight to twelve inches round. This would allow grilse to pass, and fill the river with breeding fish. Or, secondly, the weekly close time might be extended so as to include Friday as well as Saturday afternoon and Sunday. Or, thirdly, the annual close time for net and rod fishing might commence a month earlier than at present; say net fishing to close on the 1st of August, and rod fishing on the 1st of October. Any of these measures would give the upper proprietors a much better supply of fish than they now have. They all, I think, deserve consideration. One thing at least is certain, that unless the upper proprietors have a better share of the fish than they have at present, they will soon cease to take an interest in their preservation.

To Colonel J. Wilson Patten, M.P.

* * * * *

LOW MOOR, 10th January, 1865.

MY DEAR SIR,—I shall be very glad if I can induce you to read my opinions on the Salmon question. It is one which I think may become of even national importance, if properly managed. But the sad tinkering it has hitherto received in the nine hundred and ninety-nine Acts of Parliament wholly or partly devoted to the subject makes me almost hopeless about future legislation. Yet it seems to me that the only way to greatly increase the breed of Salmon is so simple and obvious, that its not having been adopted long since can only be accounted for by supposing that all the parties interested in the matter are like the man in the fable, who killed the goose that laid the golden eggs.

Hitherto the law has never properly recognized the claims of the upper riparian proprietors. These men have all the trouble and expense of rearing and protecting the young fish, whilst the owners of estuary fisheries, men who never lift a hand nor spend a penny in taking care of the brood, take above ninety per cent. of the grown Salmon when in season; and even then think they are hardly used. How can it be expected that the upper proprietors should be very earnest in their protection of fish from which they derive little or no benefit, merely acting the part of brood hens and hatching the chickens for the benefit of other people?

In June, 1769, 3,384 Salmon and Salmon Trout were taken at a single haul of the net in the Ribble, near Penwortham. Now the sea is as wide, and, for anything we know to the contrary, as capable of feeding them as it was a hundred years ago; and the rivers are as capable of breeding and rearing them now as they were at that time; and therefore I do not see why, if proper steps were taken, they should not be as abundant now as they were then.

If we take a sheep or a bullock, and to his first cost add the rent of the land on which he has pastured, and something for insurance and interest on capital, the transaction is not a very profitable one in the long run. But in the case of the Salmon, we send a little fish down to the sea which is not worth a penny, and he remains there, paying neither rent nor taxes, neither gamekeepers' nor bailiffs' wages, costing nothing to anyone, until he returns to the river, worth ten or twenty shillings, as the case may be. Surely this is a branch of the public wealth that deserves sedulous cultivation.

I think with you that the Calder can never become a Salmon river, so long as manufactories flourish on its banks, and it is not desirable that it ever should become so at their expense; but even in the Calder (and its tributaries) a little care would prevent immense mischief. Some people at Church, a few years ago, very carelessly pushed a quantity of poisonous matter into the Hyndburn brook, and the first thunderstorm that followed carried it down the Calder into the Ribble, and poisoned all the fish between Calder foot and Ribchester. Take another instance of carelessness in the Ribble, the emptying of the gas-holder tank at Settle, which when turned into the river killed nearly all the fish between that town and Mitton. Several other instances occur to me, but these two are sufficient to show the great mischief occasioned by avoidable neglect and carelessness. Such mischief should not be perpetrated with impunity.

The act of 1861 was very good as far as it went, notwithstanding some oversights; but it did not go far enough. It did not give to the upper riparian proprietors such an interest in the fish as they are entitled to, nor is the interest they now have sufficient to induce them to exert themselves in the preservation and increase of the Salmon as they might and would do if such additional stimulus were given to them. The law now is, that no nets shall be used in the taking of Salmon between twelve o'clock at noon on Saturdays, and six o'clock on Monday mornings. That is, forty-two hours per week. But in the Ribble, as a rule, we never see seasonable Salmon until May. Now from that time to the 1st of September, is, say sixteen weeks, and at forty-two hours per week (the length of the weekly close time) this gives twenty-eight days during which time the fish may pass up the river without interruption; but this is by no means the true state of the case. Everyone conversant with the habits of Salmon knows that they never ascend rivers except when they are in a state of flood; and in average summers, partly owing to droughts, and partly to the rapid evaporation and absorption of moisture by vegetation, these twenty-eight days may fairly be reduced by two-thirds, to give the true time allowed for the ascent of the fish. But say ten days, which are supposed to give an adequate supply of fish to a hundred miles of river,—the extent of the Ribble and its Salmon-breeding tributaries. Is it surprising that the upper proprietors are not satisfied with this state of things? It would be surprising if they were content with such a cheeseparing allowance.

When the bill of 1861 was before the House of Commons, I had an opportunity (indirectly) of suggesting to the late Sir George Cornewall Lewis the propriety of a considerable extension of the weekly close time. He replied, "You might as well propose to shoot partridges only three days a week, as to restrict the netting of Salmon to only three days." With all due deference to such an authority, there is no analogy between the two cases. But if partridges had all to migrate and return before they could be legally shot, and had, like Salmon, to come by one road, and if, like them, ninety per cent. of them became the prey of men who had neither bred nor fed them, I fancy the sportsman who reared them would want some restrictions placed on their being shot by men who had not spent a farthing in breeding and protecting them, but who took the lion's share in their appropriation.

I saw Lord Derby on the subject last spring. He had, however, so little time at his disposal that he could only give me a few minutes. He said a good deal must be allowed for vested interests. I said, "My Lord, I am a manufacturer. When the Ten Hours Bill was passed, manufacturers were deprived of one-sixth of their fixed capital at a stroke, and had not a farthing allowed for their vested interests; nay, more, that measure involved the destruction of machinery which had cost millions. All this was done on grounds of public policy. And is not the Salmon question one of public policy? If, as I suppose, the measure I advocate produced a great increase in the breed of Salmon, the estuary fisheries would be the first to profit by it. They are the first on the river. Indeed, the stake nets in the estuaries are taking fish daily in times of drought, when fish will not ascend the river at all."

In 1859 we had not a fresh in the river between the 10th of April and the 1st of August. And last year we had only a few days of flood between the beginning of May and the 31st August, when close time (for nets) commences.

I have said above that only ten days per year are allowed for the supply of fish to the upper proprietors. I may be told that they have two months (September and October) in which they are allowed to angle for them. True, but what are they worth? They are not allowed to be sold, they are not fit to eat, the fish are black (or red), the milt and spawn nearly at maturity, and the only temptation they offer is to the poacher (who often pots the roe as a bait for Trout); and he is a poacher, whatever his rank or station, who will kill an October fish when full of spawn.

Last year, at my suggestion, a meeting of gentlemen interested in Salmon fisheries was convened at Worcester, during the meeting there of the Royal Agricultural Society, and a number of suggestions were made, and resolutions were come to, which were intended to serve as a basis for the desired alterations in the Salmon Bill of 1861. I have no memoranda to which I can now refer, but the most important, according to my recollection, were the following:—The extension of the weekly close time; the annual close time to be extended to Trout; a right to be given to all conservators and water-bailiffs, duly appointed, to pass along the banks of Salmon rivers without being deemed guilty of trespass; a tax on fishing-nets, rods, and implements, to defray the expenses of protecting the rivers from poachers.

The Commissioner of Salmon Fisheries, Mr. Eden, has been convening meetings of gentlemen interested in Salmon rivers at Chester, Conway, York, and various other places, to explain the provisions of the bill which Government introduced at the end of last session and intend to bring forward again. I have not attended any of these meetings, but expect he will be at Whalley or Preston shortly, when we shall hear what he has got to say. The new bill, as printed last year, does not embody any of the suggestions of the Worcester meeting; but as I learn from private sources, Mr. Eden, at the various meetings he has lately attended, has thrown out various suggestions, some of which are highly objectionable.

For instance, he suggests that the magistrates in quarter sessions assembled shall have the power to appoint conservators, and that the conservators shall have the power to expend all the money raised by subscription in having water-bailiffs to put up fish- ladders, commencing actions at law in certain cases; and if the subscriptions are not adequate to defray all these expenses, that they (the conservators) shall have the power to levy a rate in aid on the riparian proprietors.

I cannot see how this can be made to work equitably. If the rate be laid on the extent of frontage to the river, one man may have a great extent of no value for fishing purposes, another may have only one pool, so conveniently formed and placed for netting that he will be able to catch ten times as many fish as the other. Then how are the fisheries in the estuary and just above tideway to be valued? They probably take ninety per cent. of all the seasonable fish. Will they be willing to pay ninety per cent. of the rate?

Again, the college at Stonyhurst claims a right of several fishery, both in the Ribble and the Hodder. That is, they exercise a right to fish in both rivers, where they have no land, and they exercise this right so freely that they take more fish than all the other upper proprietors added together. If, then, the tax is laid on the extent of frontage to the rivers, these reverend gentlemen would escape entirely, so far as the right of several fishery extends, and would only pay the rate on their own extent of frontage.

Again, the new bill does not embody the suggestions of the Worcester meeting as to the right of way for the water-bailiffs; but according to Mr. Eden's comment upon it at Chester and elsewhere, a strict surveillance is to be kept on weirs, to which the water-bailiffs are to have free access. Personally I have no objection to this, provided the water-bailiffs are allowed free access to the banks of the river elsewhere; but I have a strong objection to be made the subject of offensive exceptional legislation. Are not gamekeepers as likely to need looking after as mill-owners?

Again, the bill does not touch on minimum penalties. This it ought to do, for in some districts (Wales, for instance) there is a strong animus against all attempts at preserving the Salmon, and notorious poachers, duly convicted of offences against the act of 1861, in some instances have been fined a shilling, in others a farthing.

To W. H. Hornby, Esq., M.P.

* * * * *

REMARKS ON A PROPOSED BILL FOR THE BETTER PRESERVATION OF SALMON.

CLITHEROE, August 27th, 1860.

HENRY GEORGE, ESQ.

DEAR SIR,—I am favoured by the receipt of your letter of the 25th inst., and the accompanying draft of a proposed bill "for the better Preservation of Salmon," and proceed at once to offer such remarks and suggestions as occur to me, and shall be glad to learn that they meet with your approval.

In the third clause (section) you give an interpretation of the names under which you wish to include all fish of the Salmon kind. Does not this include common Trout? You specially include Char by name. Would it not be better to limit your intentions to all migratory fish of the Salmon kind, to wit, Salmon, Grilse, &c. &c.? I think also the meaning of a fixed net wants defining more rigorously. As it now stands it appears to me that it would include any net which should be fastened on a root or stone whilst it was being drawn through a pool, if the men employed in doing this were to let go the cords whilst they loosed the net from the obstruction.

Fourth clause.—I quite agree with you on the period allotted to annual close time, but think there ought to be a penalty for buying, selling, or having in possession Salmon roe (save and except for the purpose of artificial propagation).

Seventh.—I do not agree with you at all on the subject of the weekly close time, which in my opinion ought to be for one-half of every day, except Sunday, and the whole of that day. Why should the owners of fisheries at the mouths of rivers, who are at neither trouble nor expense in breeding or preserving the spawning fish, have all the benefit derivable from their increase? Why should the upper proprietors act the part of brood hens for these, hatching and preserving the fish for the benefit of those who take no trouble about these things themselves?

Twelfth.—I do not agree with you as to the size of the mesh: I do not think that a mesh of twelve inches in circumference, or three inches from knot to knot, at all too large; it would permit fish below six pounds to escape, and this being done, there would under any circumstances be a fair supply of breeding fish.

Fifteenth.—I think your leister requires a more rigorous definition. A man in this neighbourhood is reputed to have killed a good many Salmon with a hay or a dung fork. Are either of these leisters?

Your sixteenth section is utterly impracticable. How could such hecks or grates be prevented from choking with leaves in the autumn and ice in the winter, thus stopping the wheels? You might as well require a farmer to hedge out the game. Impose a penalty, if you like, upon any millowner who may kill Salmon in his mill lead; and as you give your conservators power to inspect everywhere, you will readily detect such practices. But it will never do to close the mills by pretexts that the fish may be taken or killed there.

Twenty-first.—I do not understand the meaning of this. But taken in its ordinary sense, it seems to me to be very unjust. Many persons have traps in their weirs for the purpose of taking Salmon to which they plead a prescriptive right. Do you mean to do away with these? You may succeed in this, but why should not a man be allowed to fish in the river above the weir where there are no obstructions to the passage of the fish? And why should not a man be allowed to fish with a rod and line below the weir, and as near to it as he chooses? I think weirs might be safely divided into two classes: those used for manufacturing purposes and those for fishery purposes; that a man should be allowed to say in which class his weir should be included. If for manufacturing purposes he should not be allowed to catch Salmon (except with rod and line) within a certain distance below the weir. If he choose to class his weir as one for fishery purposes, he should then be compelled to give a free passage to the fish for twelve hours every day; but he should be compelled to make his election as to the class in which he would include his weir.

Twenty-fifth.—It would never do to allow the commissioners to make bye-laws. Suppose the case of a millowner who got into a dispute with them: he might be utterly ruined by their bye-laws; they might make bye-laws which deprived him of his water-power, under a pretext that they were taking more efficient care of the Salmon.

Thirty-first.—I think the licence to angle should be compulsory, and not at the discretion of the commissioner. That it should be in the nature of a game licence, qualifying and enabling the holder to angle in any river of Great Britain and Ireland, provided he had the consent of the owner of the fishery where he was angling.

(Additional observations). Twelfth.—You say that no double net shall be used. Do you mean to prohibit the trammel, which is usually a treble and not a double net? You also prohibit one net behind another, but you do not specify the distance outside of which a second net would be lawful. If neither a series of Scotch nets nor a single trammel is to be used, by what sort of net do you propose to catch the Salmon?

Nineteenth.—You say the sluices which admit water to wheels or factories shall be kept closed from six o'clock on Saturday night to six o'clock on Monday morning. How, then, are the repairs of shafting and machinery to be made? These are generally done when the workpeople have gone home on Saturdays. Besides, what is your object? If the river is low, the Salmon will not be running up the stream, and if it be in flood there will always be an abundant supply running over the weir in addition to that which would be required to turn the wheel. You add that the water may be allowed to flow freely through the waste-gate, provided the opening of such a waste-gate shall not deprive the mill of the necessary supply of water.

Eighteenth.—In this clause you say that in weirs already constructed it shall be lawful for the commissioner, on the application of any two or more persons interested in the fisheries of such river, and at the proper costs and charges of the persons making such application—proof having been first given, &c.—to cause a survey to be made of such dam or weir by a competent engineer, and to direct such alterations to be made therein as shall, in the opinion of the commissioner, be necessary and desirable, &c.

In this clause, which so far as it goes is very desirable, you have omitted a proviso without which it could never pass into a law. You have forgotten to provide for the legal right of the millowner, which would, or might, be taken away by the alteration made in the weir unless there were some provision in the act which prevented this being done. At present there is no such proviso in your act. Here I have offered for years to allow the upper proprietors to make any alteration they liked in the weir, provided such alterations did not affect the milling power, the stability of the weir, or my legal title to the weir as existing at present. And my legal adviser tells me that any alteration made in the weir without a guarantee from the upper proprietors would very probably deprive me of my present title.

* * * * *

LETTERS ON AGRICULTURAL SUBJECTS.

* * * * *

ON THE CULTIVATION OF WHEAT ON THE SAME LAND IN SUCCESSIVE YEARS.

To The Editor of the "Manchester Guardian."

CLITHEROE, October 5th, 1843.

SIR,—I PROMISED to send you some details of my attempt to grow wheat on the same soil year after year. These I now forward, and hope they may prove interesting. I was led into these experiments by reading Liebig's book on the "Chemistry of Agriculture;" for, assuming his theory to be true, it appeared to me to be quite possible to grow wheat on the same land year after year; as, according to that theory, the carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen, which constitute the great bulk of all cereal crops (both grain and straw), are supplied in abundance from the soil and atmosphere (or perhaps, to speak more correctly, from the latter), and we have only to supply those inorganic substances, which, however numerous, form but a small part of the whole weight of the crop. With the view of testing this theory, and hoping that I might be able to find out what were the elements which built up and cemented the carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen together—or, in other words, which constituted fertility—I begun, in the autumn of 1841, to experiment on a field which had been exhausted by a succession of crops, and which had just been cleared of one of oats. I chose an exhausted field in preference to any other, as the only one in which I could test the truth of the theory. It was very foul, being full of couch grass and weeds of all kinds. It was ploughed up and hastily picked over, for the season was so unfavourable for cleaning the land (from the great quantity of rain that fell) that I was almost induced to abandon the experiment. Previously to sowing the seed, one-fourth of the field was manured with a compost of night-soil and coal-ashes, at the rate of forty tons to the customary acre (7840 yards); the remaining three-fourths having the seed put in without any manure whatever. The winter was very unfavourable for the plants in our cold wet soil, and in the unmanured part of the field many of them perished, and those that survived made very little progress, from having no stimulus at the roots. Thinking it desirable to apply my experimental manures in moist weather, I waited until the 6th May, when I treated that part of the field which had not been manured (three-fourths of the whole) in the following manner. I applied guano to one-fourth, at the rate of two hundredweight to the statute acre, and the same weight of nitrate of soda over another fourth, leaving one-fourth entirely without manure. The wheat manured with the guano and nitrate of soda grew vigorously, and the ears, more particularly in the part manured with guano, were the finest I had ever seen, but when it came to ripen it shrivelled in the ear, and the sample was very indifferent; the soil being evidently deficient in some property necessary for perfecting the grain. The crop also suffered much from the depredations of the birds.

The portion manured with night-soil produced
to the statute acre 32 bushels of 60 lbs. each.

Guano " " 27 " " "
Nitrate of Soda " " 27 " " "
Unmanured part " " 19 2/3 " " "

I give these details to show that the land was in an exhausted state previous to the commencement of the experiment I am now about to detail. After the crop of 1842 was reaped, the land was immediately ploughed up, and the season being very favourable, it was tolerably well cleaned, and the seed was sown (without any manure) about the first week in October. After the wheat came up, it was manured with a dusting of one hundredweight of guano, over the entire field (about one acre, three roods), to keep the plants alive through the winter. In the spring, being divided into three portions, it was manured with the same number of experimental manures, which were furnished to me by Mr. Blyth, of Church, near Accrington, who also analyzed the soil and subsoil for me. These manures were applied about the 10th of April, and the experiment was still further varied by covering a portion of each division with guano a fortnight afterwards, at the rate of two hundredweight to the acre, but all the manure applied to the crop, including the hundredweight of guano put on in the autumn, did not exceed 6 1/2 hundredweight. The crop, which was a very thin one in the spring, improved so much by the application of these manures, that when it came into ear, it was allowed by all who saw it to be the best in the neighbourhood; but the heavy rains of July caused it to lodge in the best part of the field, and there it was attacked by rust, and the sample was very indifferent. In addition to this drawback, there being very little wheat grown in the neighbourhood of the town, and this being much earlier than any of the other fields, was attacked by the birds as soon as the grain was formed in the ear. Notwithstanding all the efforts made to prevent them, they continued feeding upon it until it was cut; and it is a very moderate estimate of the damage, to say that they destroyed one- fourth of the crop throughout the field. That part of the field covered with manure (No. 1) being the earliest, suffered most. There were patches of several square yards where there did not appear to be a single grain left; and wherever the birds took a grain from the middle of the ear, when in the milky state, the grains on each side of it appeared to grow no more, but shrivelled up in the ear.

I have little doubt that in this portion of the field one-third of the crop was destroyed. All this seems to reduce the experiment to little more than guess-work; and it will, probably, be very difficult to persuade those who did not see the field when it was cut, to credit this report of the devastation made by the birds; even when they are told that Clitheroe is a town of 7,000 inhabitants, and probably as many sparrows, and that apparently they were all assembled to feed in this field; and they became so accustomed to the good living they found there, that even when our neighbours' wheat was fit to eat, they continued to favour this field with their visits in preference to going elsewhere. I estimate the damage on No. 1 at one-third, No. 2 at one-fourth, No. 3 at one-fifth; this was later than the others, and suffered more from rust than birds.

The following are the results:—From 3,060 yards manured with No. 1, there were obtained 1,042 lbs. of wheat, or 27 1/2 bushels of 60 lbs. each to the statute acre; if we add one-half to this, as we assume that one-third was destroyed by the birds, it will give 41 1/4 bushels to the statute acre. The weight of straw from this portion was 188 stones 5 lbs., 14 lbs. to the stone. From 2,856 yards manured with No. 2, 962 lbs. of wheat were obtained, and 155 stones 9 lbs. of straw; this is equal to 27 1/4 bushels per acre, or with one-third added, for estimated damage, it is equal to 36 bushels per statute acre. From 2610 yards manured with No. 3, there were 1,067 lbs. of wheat, and 211 stones 7 lbs. of straw, or 33 bushels to the statute acre, to which if we add one-fourth, according to the estimate of damage, it will be equal to 41 1/4 bushels per acre. It will be observed that this portion yielded a far greater weight of straw per acre than either of the others, and from the sort of manure applied, it was expected that this would be the case.

No. 1 yielded straw at the rate of 297 3/4 stones per acre. " 2 " " " " 246 3/4 " " " 3 " " " " 392 1/3 " "

Many people may feel inclined to say, that all these apparent data are mere guesses, and that a crop may be made into anything one likes, if they assume so much for damages; but, fortunately, it is not all guess-work. I have stated previously that I covered a part of each division with guano a fortnight after the application of the manures in April, intending to see what advantage was obtained by the use of it; but, owing to the depredations of the birds, the portions of the first and second divisions manured with guano were not kept separate from those which were left without guano; but the third being later, and, therefore, not so much injured by them, gave me an opportunity of ascertaining the effect. I measured off a land which had been so manured, and reaped and thrashed it out separately. From this land of 100 yards long and 10 feet wide (3,000 square feet), there was obtained 220 lbs. of wheat, or 53 bushels of 60 lbs. per statute acre; and this was far from being the best portion of the field. I don't mean that it was not the best portion of the crop, but I mean that the soil was not so good there as it was in other parts of the field; as I have before stated, in the best part of the field the crop was spoiled by being lodged by the rain, and subsequently attacked by rust.

I communicate this to you, in the hope that the publication of it in your paper maybe the means of stimulating others to try the same experiments. It is not too late yet to try for the next year's crop, and I have no doubt that Mr. Blyth will be happy to supply both material and information to any who may require them from him. It is the duty of everyone to promote the advancement of agriculture; and this is my contribution towards it. I have not yet done, for I have sown the same field with wheat again, and hope, with a favourable season, to reap a still more abundant crop next year.

* * * * *

To the same.

CLITHEROE, October 12th, 1844.

SIR,—Last October you published an account of an attempt of mine to grow wheat on the same land year after year; and, as I have repeated the experiment this year, I shall be obliged if you will be kind enough to insert the account of it in the "Guardian," as the subject appears to me to be an important one; and, as many persons who may read this letter may either not have seen the former, or may have forgotten it, I trust that a short summary of the former experiments may not be out of place.

These experiments took place in the autumn of 1841, after the field had been cleared of a crop of oats, which was a very bad one; the land being not only naturally poor, but foul and exhausted by long cropping. As the season was very wet, it was indifferently cleaned, and one-fourth of it manured with a compost of night-soil and ashes, and then the field was sowed with wheat. Two of the remaining three-fourths were manured on the 6th of May, 1842 (the spring being a very dry one, no rain came until that day), one with guano, the other with nitrate of soda, each at the rate of two hundredweight to the statute acre, and the remaining fourth was left unmanured.

The following were the results at harvest:—That manured with night-soil and ashes produced 32 bushels of 60 lbs. per acre; guano, 27 bushels; nitrate of soda, 27 bushels; unmanured, 19 2/3 bushels. When the field had been cleared of the crop, it was immediately ploughed up, and, as the season was favourable, the land was well cleaned and sowed with wheat in October, 1842, without any manure except 1 cwt. of guano, which was scattered over it when the wheat was coming up. The field was divided into three portions, and in April, 1843, was manured as follows:—No. 1, with 90 lbs. of sulphate of magnesia, and 2 cwt. nitrate of soda to the statute acre; No. 2, with a compound from a manufacturer of chemical manures; No. 3, with 60 lbs. of silicate of soda and 2 cwt. of nitrate of soda to the acre; and, with the view of still further varying the experiment, a part of each portion was sowed with guano a fortnight after the application of the chemical manures. The crop promised to be a very good one, but it was much plundered by the birds, and as the summer was wet, it suffered also much from rust. Allowing for the destruction occasioned by the birds, the crop was estimated at:

41 1/4 bushels in patch No. 1, 36 " " No. 2, 41 1/4 " " No. 3,

and in that part of No. 3 which was also covered with guano, it reached by actual weight (not by estimate), 53 bushels of 60 lbs. to the acre. Those patches in Nos. 1 and 2 which had guano put on them, suffered so much from the depredations of the birds, that no account was taken of them separately. The crop was cleared off the land, which was cleaned, and again sowed with wheat on 3rd October, 1843. It was drilled in rows seven inches apart, and at the rate of 2 1/2 bushels to the acre. It is to the results of this crop that I now wish to call your attention. Before sowing, the land was subsoiled to the depth of from 14 to 16 inches; except a strip of about 10 feet in width, down the middle of the field, which was left untouched for the purpose of determining what were the advantages derived from subsoiling. If the advantage was merely that of thorough draining (for the field had not been thoroughly drained previous to the subsoiling), it was thought probable that this strip of 10 feet wide would be drained by the subsoiling on each side of it; but if, in addition to this, the wheat plant derived more nourishment by striking its root deeper into the soil, where that was loosened by the subsoil plough, the crop ought to be better in the subsoiled than in the unsubsoiled part. The field runs over the ridge of a hill, and upon that ridge the soil is so poor and thin, that it was deemed expedient to give it a slight dressing of coal-ashes and night-soil, from an idea that the plant would scarcely survive the winter unless some stimulus were applied there; but the ashes contained little manure, and were only applied to the worst part of the field, covering about one-third of its surface. The wheat was Spalding's Prolific; it came up evenly and well all over the field. It was hand-sowed with lime early in February to the extent of about 24 cwt. of dry lime on the acre. In order to ascertain the value of lime, and the proper quantity, I had the field uniformly covered with it, except one land, which was left entirely without, and the headlands, which had one three, the other six times as much lime put upon them as any other part. The field was also dressed with a chemical manure of the following ingredients on the 16th March, costing:—

L. s. d.

1 1/4 cwt. nitrate of soda 0 17 6 1 " impure sulphate of magnesia 0 5 0 3/4 " silicate of soda 0 11 3 3/4 " common salt 0 2 0 1 1/4 " gypsum 0 2 0 Mixing and applying it, say 0 2 3

Total for statute acre L2 0 0

Speculating on the probability of a dry summer, I gave it an extra quantity of manure, and I think where guano is used afterwards, as it is by me, the nitrate of soda might be dispensed with, which would bring the cost to L1 2s. 6d. per acre. I should prefer guano to nitrate of soda, because of the phosphates contained in the former. At the distance we are from the sea (about thirty miles) it would seldom be necessary to apply common salt, as the gales of winter generally bring as much as is needed; but last winter we had no high winds, and I thought that where salt was applied with other chemical manures, the wheat was more luxuriant than where there was none; but owing to a misunderstanding of the instructions to that effect, the produce was not kept separate. When the chemical manure was applied, one land was left without, for the purpose of comparison. Guano was sowed on the land on the 29th March, at the rate of something less than 2 cwt. to the statute acre, one side of the field being covered with Peruvian, the other with African, and the land on which no chemical manure had been sowed was half of it covered with guano, and the other half left without anything except lime; but as it was thought desirable to ascertain the value of the chemical manure without guano, half of this patch was sowed with the chemical manure in April, after the long drought of the last spring had set in. A small patch was left without manure, to show the natural condition of the field, and to serve as a comparison with the manured part alongside it, and also with the condition of the field when the experiment commenced, 1841-2, when the unmanured portion yielded only 19 2/3 bushels to the acre. This part of the experiment, however, was frustrated by the carelessness of the men who thrashed out the wheat. The crop was a very good one throughout the field, but was evidently shorter and thinner where there was no lime, and also where guano was applied alone. It was best on the headlands where more lime had been applied. The weather was extremely favourable until the wheat was going out of bloom, but it then changed, and the crop was beaten down by the rain, in some places so thoroughly that it never rose again; and from that time to the day it was reaped (21st August), there were not more than six fine warm days. This cold and ungenial weather would, no doubt, materially affect both the quantity and quality of the crop,—the sample only being just fair. On thrashing out the crop, I find the result to be as follows:—Where the guano and chemical manure were applied, but no lime, the yield was 49 1/5 bushels of 60 lbs. per statute acre; where the land was left unsubsoiled, it was 52 1/2 bushels; when guano alone was applied, it was 42 1/3 bushels; where the chemical manure alone was applied, it was 43 1/2 bushels; where the African guano was applied, it was 45 bushels; where the Peruvian was applied, it was 52 2/3 bushels; on the headlands, where three times the quantity of lime (or 3 1/2 tons per acre) was applied, it was nearly 62 bushels; and where six times the quantity of lime (or 7 tons to the acre), it was 49 2/3 bushels. I give this last result as it was ascertained, but do not consider it conclusive, for the wheat plant on this headland looked quite as well as the other, until it went out of bloom, when from some unknown cause it was partially blighted; an irregular patch from a foot to a yard in width and extending almost from end to end of the headland becoming brown and parched, as if affected by lightning or some atmospheric visitation. With the view of making these results a little clearer to the eye, I subjoin the following tabular statement of the produce per acre in the different parts of the field:—

Bushels of 60 lbs. per statute acre.

Guano alone 42 1/3 Chemical manure alone 43 1/2 Guano and chemical manure, with 24 cwt. lime to the acre, but land unsubsoiled 52 2/3 Guano and chemical manure, but no lime 49 1/5 African guano and lime 45 Peruvian " " 52 2/3 " " and 3 times as much lime 62 " " and 6 " " 49 2/3 Average crop throughout the field 50

It may be as well to observe, that the total expense of manure, and of its application to that portion of the field which produced sixty-two bushels per acre (including the guano and the additional quantity of lime used), was at the rate of 81s. per statute acre. Deducting the cost of the nitrate of soda, the utility of which, under the circumstances, I am inclined to doubt, it would have been 63s. 6d. I consider these to be very favourable results, and as offering strong inducements to continue the experiment. I have accordingly had the land ploughed up and cleaned; and it was again sowed with wheat on the 9th inst. Having detailed the general results of the experiment, I beg to offer the following remarks upon some points in it, which seem to me to require a little elucidation. I consider the success of this experiment to be in a great measure owing to the use of soluble silica and magnesia; because, although there is an abundance of silica in the soil, my first crop showed very miserable results, the grain being ill-fed and poor, and the straw soft and discoloured, although the year 1842 was, in this district, very favourable for wheat, the month of August being singularly fine and warm; but when I combined the nitrate of soda with sulphate of magnesia, as in experiment No. 1 in 1843, but still more so when I combined it with the silicate of soda, as in No. 3 of that year, the straw became as strong, firm, and bright as need be desired; and this year when both these salts are combined with nitrate of soda, common salt, and gypsum, I have not only good and bright straw, but also an abundant crop of wheat.

With respect to the lime used, it may be as well to state that the field had not been limed for many years, and although in a limestone district, showed a deficiency of lime on analysis. The soil is a strong loam, on a brick clay subsoil, in which there is little or no lime, although the stony clays, which form the subsoil in a great part of the district, abound in it, containing from twenty to thirty per cent. of carbonate of lime. I had always believed that lime was used in great excess in this neighbourhood, and had, in fact, an idea that its good qualities were overrated, inasmuch as it does not enter into the composition of the plant, except in very minute proportion; but last winter I saw a paper (by Mr. Briggs of Overton) on the possibility of growing wheat on the same land year after year, in which the utility of lime in preventing rust was incidentally touched upon. I also saw Liebig's letters explaining the action of quicklime in liberating potash from the clay; and then I considered it very important to ascertain the proper quantity to be applied. The quantity required to decompose the phosphate of iron was not great, and assuming Liebig's theory of its action in liberating the potash to be true, it seemed to me that an excess of lime would permanently impoverish the land; for, supposing that the crop required 100 lbs. of potash, and as much lime was applied as liberated 500 lbs., what became of the 400 lbs. which did not enter into the composition of the plant? was not a large portion of this 400 lbs. washed down the drains by the rain, and so lost for ever? Perhaps the absence of lime in this field accounts for its beneficial action in the experiment just detailed; but if my supposition is correct, that any excess of potash which may be liberated from the clay by the use of quicklime (that is, any more than may be required to perfect the crop), is washed down the drains, and thus the land is permanently impoverished by the excessive use of lime, it behoves landed proprietors to ascertain what is required, and they should take care to apply no more than is necessary. This caution is most particularly needed in this neighbourhood, where lime is cheap, and where the opinion is prevalent that the more there is applied the better it is for the land, and where it is common to apply ten or twelve tons to the acre. I have stated above that chemical manure was applied to a small portion of the field after the setting-in of the drought in April. The action of this manure showed that a good thing may be very injurious if applied at an improper time; for, although it produced a stimulating effect on the plant immediately after its application, there was too little moisture in the land to dissolve it thoroughly, and thus enable the plants to appropriate it, until the rain came, about the end of June, when the wheat had been in flower some time; but the stimulus was then so great that all the plants threw up fresh stalks (from the roots), which were in flower when the wheat was cut, and it was then found that they had not only impoverished the plants, but had prevented the grain from ripening. This was the case not only in the experimental field, but in several others also, where the chemical manure was sowed after the setting-in of the drought. When the field was sowed with guano, it was thought desirable to cover one part of it with the African, and the other with Peruvian, for the sake of comparison; but as the African did not appear to produce the same stimulating effect as the other, fifty per cent. more was applied, that the cost might be equal (the Peruvian cost 10s., the African 7s. per cwt.); but as the latter application of the African was made when the wheat was just shooting into ear, the same objection applies to the experiment which does to the chemical manure applied after the drought had set in—viz., that there was not sufficient moisture in the soil to dissolve it thoroughly until the plant was too far advanced to benefit by it; and therefore its failure would be no proof of the value of the African as compared with the Peruvian, which was the object of the experiment. It is true, no bad effects followed the application similar to those produced by the misapplication of the chemical manure in dry weather, yet if soluble salts like the latter did not find sufficient moisture in the ground when applied in April, there is reason to suppose that the former would not do so when applied in May. I regret the failure of the experiment without any manure, as I think the result would have shown satisfactorily that the land is so far from being impoverished by this system of cropping, that it is improving every year. I think, however, that this is shown by the produce of the land manured with guano alone. In the first year's experiment the produce from guano alone was 27 bushels per acre, and both straw and wheat were very indifferent in quality. This year the produce from guano alone is 42 1/3 bushels; and although neither straw nor wheat are so good as upon the adjoining lands, they are both very much better than they were in 1842. It will be observed that the result from the unsubsoiled portion is very good, and if nothing more were said about it, people would be led to conclude that there was no advantage in subsoiling. But this, in my opinion, would be a great mistake; for to say nothing of the advantage which the unsubsoiled portion would derive from the drainage which it received from the subsoiling on each side of it, I found, when the field was ploughed up this autumn, that whilst the unsubsoiled portion was stiff and heavy, the subsoiled part was comparatively friable and loose, like a garden, and will, I expect, show its superiority in the succeeding crops. It must be borne in mind, in reading these experiments, that we have here one of the most unfavourable climates in the kingdom for growing wheat, from the excessive quantity of rain that falls, three times more rain falling annually in the north of Lancashire than at York, and this, no doubt, is very prejudicial to the success of such a series of experiments as I have been detailing. It has been objected to these experiments, that allowing all to have been done which is here detailed, it leads to no important conclusion; for although it may be practicable to grow wheat every year, in a small field like the one experimented on, it is not so on a large scale. But the objectors should remember that there is not the seed of a single weed sowed with the manure; and therefore if the land is thoroughly cleaned, and kept so, by hoeing the crop in the spring, it will require very little labour to fit it for another. But I shall be better able to speak on this head next harvest, having sowed wheat on an oat stubble with once ploughing. It is said there are no weeds in Chinese husbandry, and if they can eradicate them completely, so may we, if we adopt the same methods and follow them up as perseveringly. Again, admitting that it is not practicable to grow wheat on the same land year after year on a large scale, yet if we can double the crop in those years in which we do grow it, by the application of chemical manures (and the same manures are applicable to all cereal crops), will not that be a conclusion worth arriving at? That it is possible to do so, is, I think, sufficiently shown by the results I have obtained. What, then, may we expect when these experiments are infinitely multiplied and varied, under the superintendence of skilful and experienced men, who will devote their whole time and attention to the subject? Will raising the average produce from twenty-five to fifty bushels per acre be the utmost limit to which improvement can be carried? I believe not. In conclusion, I would urge on all owners and occupiers of land, the importance of devoting at least a small field to agricultural experiments, as I think there can be no doubt that, if these are carefully and systematically made and followed up by agriculturists generally, we shall be so far from needing an importation of corn in average years that we shall have a large surplus to spare for our neighbours.

NOTE.—In the use of silicates of soda and potash one precaution is very necessary—viz., that you really have a soluble silicate, and not a mere mechanical mixture of ground flint and soda: this is a very different thing, and one, if it be not carefully guarded against, which will lead to nothing but disappointment. Again, the silicate may be properly made in the first place, but in a long exposure to the atmosphere the soda attracts carbonic acid, and the soda is liberated, and this has defeated my expectations more than once. Again, though I consider it desirable to defer the application of it until vegetation has fairly started in the spring, yet, in one instance, I delayed the application of it so long, that there was not moisture to dissolve it until the end of June, and then the wheat began to shoot afresh from the roots and the crop was seriously injured by it: but this was in an exceedingly dry spring, and might not happen again for many years.

* * * * *

To the same.

LOW MOOR, 18th December, 1845.

SIR,—I promised to communicate to you the results of my attempt to grow wheat on the same land year after year, this being the fourth crop of wheat (the fifth white crop) grown in successive years on the same soil, and though I consider the crop an indifferent one, I don't think the failure ought in any degree to be attributed to the over-cropping, but to the wetness and coldness of the season, as well as other untoward circumstances hereafter to be mentioned.

In a former letter of mine of the 12th October, 1844—which was published in the "Guardian" a few days after—I gave an account of the crop of 1844, which was a very good one, being fifty bushels to the acre throughout the field, and as much as fifty-two bushels in the best part of it. This I considered so satisfactory that I had the field again ploughed up and sowed with wheat on the 9th October, 1844, and it is to the results of this crop that I wish to call your attention. As remarked in my former letter, the field was subsoil ploughed in the autumn of 1843, and this subsoiling was carried to such a depth that most of the drains in the field were more or less injured by it; and although this did no injury to the crop of 1844, owing to the very dry season, yet when the rain came in the winter of 1844, the want of drainage was found to be very prejudicial, and in the wet places large patches of the young wheat went off altogether, and there was a great deficiency of roots in many parts of the field; the long continuance of frost and after that the ungenial weather which continued so long in the spring (of 1845) were also unfavourable, yet with all these drawbacks the appearance of the plant after the growing weather did come, was very promising, and many of my friends predicted that I should have as good a crop as in 1844. On the 24th March I applied chemical manure of the same kind as I had done in 1844, at the rate of about 3 1/4 cwt. to the acre (costing 23s. 6d.), and a fortnight after I had it sowed with 2 cwt. of guano to the acre. When the warm weather came, these manurings seemed to help it wonderfully, and it was, as I have before stated, a very promising crop; but the cold, ungenial weather we had through a great part of the summer, and the continued rain we had whilst the wheat was in flower, destroyed all the former promise: and the manuring with guano, so far from being beneficial, was very injurious—so much so, that I believe every shilling's-worth of it applied to my wheat this year, made the crop a shilling worse than if nothing had been applied; and all ammoniacal manures had the same effect. It may be asked how I know it was the guano, and not the chemical manure. In answer to this inquiry, if made, I may observe, that I supplied two of my neighbours with the chemical manure, and they applied it without guano on very poor land, and they both assert they had never such good crops of wheat before; but everywhere in this neighbourhood, the only good samples of wheat that I saw or heard of were grown on exhausted soil. This appears to me to be a strong proof that chemistry has a great deal to learn before it can adapt its measures to all varieties of seasons, particularly as it cannot know beforehand how the season may turn out. If further proof be required of the injurious effect upon grain crops of ammoniacal manures in general, and of guano in particular, I may mention that in another field of wheat, sowed on the 21st December, and which did not come up until the frost broke, in March (the previous crop having been Swedes), the blade was so yellow and the plant altogether so small and sickly in appearance, that I had it manured with a water-cart from a cesspool in April. This appeared to produce a wonderful improvement immediately, as the plant assumed a deep green and grew very fast, but when it ought to have shot, the heads seemed to stick in the sockets, the blade and straw became mildewed and made no progress in ripening. It was not fit to cut for three weeks after the experimental field, although it was an early white wheat, and the result was a miserable crop—far worse than the experimental field. The instance of injury from the use of guano, I had from a neighbour, who told me he had sowed a patch of oats with it, and that they never ripened at all, and that he was compelled to cut them green as fodder for his cattle. I had a striking proof this season of the much lower temperature required by oats than wheat, when strongly stimulated by manuring. I had gathered an ear of wheat and a panicle of oats the previous season, which seemed to me to be superior varieties; and that they might have every chance, I dibbled them alongside each other in my garden, and determined to manure them with every kind of manure I could procure, as I had an idea that it was not easy to over-manure grain crops, if all the elements entering into the composition of the plant were applied in due proportion to each other, and I also wished to ascertain whether wheat and oats would thrive equally well with the same sort of manuring. I accordingly limed the land soon after the wheat came up, and in March I applied silicate of soda, sulphate of magnesia, gypsum, common salt, and nitrate of soda. A fortnight after this I applied guano, then bones dissolved in sulphuric acid, then woollen rags dissolved in potash (the two latter in weak solution); and the consequence was, that I don't think there was a single grain in the whole parcel—at least I could not find one—the straw was no great length, and the blade much discolored with mildew, whilst the oats were seven feet high, and with straws through which I could blow a pea, and large panicles, although the oat was not particularly well-fed. The inference I have drawn from these experiments is, that as far as is practicable the manuring should be adapted to the temperature, but as this is obviously impossible in a climate like ours, the only way is to rather under than over manure, and to apply no ammoniacal manure to the wheat crop, or at all events very little; for although guano was beneficial to wheat when used in conjunction with silicates, &c. &c. in 1844, yet the injury it did in 1845 may very fairly be set against that benefit. I should feel obliged if any of your readers who may have tried the experiment of manuring grain crops with guano, the last season (1845) would publish the result as compared with a similar crop without such manuring. I feel convinced that such result would be against the use of guano for wheat in 1845. I am the more confirmed in the opinion that ammoniacal manures are unfavourable for wheat, by a series of articles in the "Gardener's Chronicle" on the "Geo-Agriculture of Middlesex," in which the writer states that land in that county which in Queen Elizabeth's time produced such good wheat that it was reserved for her especial use, will now scarcely grow wheat at all, and when that grain is sowed upon it, the straw is always mildewed, and the sample very poor; and this is attributed—and no doubt justly so—to the extensive use of London manure. My crop was only 32 bushels to the acre of 60 lbs. to the bushel; last year the crop, as I have said before, was 50 bushels of the same weight.

* * * * *

To the same.

CLITHEROE, 7th March, 1848.

On continuing my attempts to grow wheat on the same land year after year, I observed that the crop of 1845 was very seriously injured by the deficient drainage—the old drains having been destroyed by the subsoil plough. It was therefore necessary to replace them: they were accordingly put in four feet deep. This occupied so much time that the season for sowing wheat had gone by, and the ground was cropped with potatoes, which were got up in September, and the wheat might have been got in early in October. But seeing in your paper that sowing too early was not advisable, and also being carried away by the arguments of the thin-seeders, I deferred sowing until the middle of November, and then put in little seed; and the winter proving very unfavourable, when the wheat was coming up, there was not half plant enough in the spring, and I hesitated whether to plough up the ground or drill in barley. I determined to do the latter, which was done on the 18th April, and wheat and barley grew up together, and when cut and threshed, proved to be equal to 48 bushels to the acre.

* * * * *

LOW MOOR, 31st December, 1844.

HENRY BRIGGS, ESQ.

I duly received your obliging letter in reply to my pamphlet on the growth of wheat year after year on the same land, and now offer my rejoinder to your remarks. You seem to consider the expense is too great under the system pursued by me; and that it was more than was required by the crop, is proved in my opinion by the fact that the fertility of the land is very much augmented since the commencement of the experiment in 1841: as my first crop with guano alone produced only 27 bushels per acre, whilst this year from guano alone the produce was 42 bushels. But still I think that your allowance of manure is far too little, and not exactly what I should apply, and I shall frankly state my objections and opinions, in the hope that they may elicit a reply from you, as it will be from discussion and the experiments instituted to test the various theories propounded, that agriculture will be most materially benefited. You state that Liebig's present theory is, that plants obtain the necessary oxygen, hydrogen, carbon, and nitrogen from the rain and atmosphere, and that the plants merely require the supply of inorganic constituents, and that you are inclined to agree with him. My copy of his work on the Chemistry of Agriculture is his first edition; and I don't know how far he has since modified or altered the opinions therein expressed, which are in some degree at variance with each other. He states that it may be received as an axiom in agricultural chemistry that the nitrogen of the atmosphere is never assimilated by plants, except in the form of ammonia or nitric acid. He certainly states that plants and animals derive their nitrogen from the atmosphere; but why, if this be true, does he attach so much importance to the excrements (particularly urine), of men and animals being husbanded with so much care? and he states that for every pound of urine wasted, a pound of wheat is thrown away. But even if he said it was utterly worthless, every practical farmer who has tried it knows how exceedingly valuable it is. It may be said there are other ingredients in urine besides ammonia, and these are what make it valuable; and in reply to this I would ask what is it that makes the ammoniacal liquor from gasworks so valuable? There are no phosphates or alkalies there, and yet what a powerful stimulant it is. Again, Liebig states that the carbon is derived from the atmosphere; but to say nothing of the argument which might be deduced from the advantage which is derived by plants from having their soil loosened about their roots, the experiments of Dumas and Boussingault prove that a tree which was cut off below the branches expired a large quantity of carbonic acid. It may be asked how I know this was not precipitated by the rain. I don't know; but if the plant would assimilate this, why should it not assimilate that which arises from the decomposition of the carbonaceous matter in the soil? My idea is that it does both, and that carbon in the soil does good if it offers an abundant supply of carbonic acid to the plant when it is in a condition to appropriate it. Your allowance of lime appears to me to be far too small, for if any reliance can be placed on my experiments, lime can be profitably used to far greater extent than you seem to imagine. And, again, you seem to think that where there is plenty of silex in the soil, the plant will be able to obtain as much as it requires. I think that it is quite necessary that the silex should be in a soluble state, as I think that it is not only desirable that all the elements necessary to fertility should be in the soil, but that they should be in such a form that they can be assimilated by the plant. Some of our compounds for producing fertility may perhaps be as absurd as it would be to give muriatic acid to a man troubled with indigestion, because free muriatic acid is found in the stomach of a healthy person. Let me recommend you to try both silex and magnesia in a soluble state, and I think you will be satisfied with the benefit derived from their use.

Recurring again to the quantity of manure necessary to grow thirty-six bushels of wheat, I would ask, why limit yourself to so small a crop? The difference in the cost of your manuring a field, and my manuring it, is more than made up by the increase of fourteen bushels of wheat and the corresponding increase of straw, even if the land did not improve every year by the application; and as the seed, rent, labour, and liabilities of the land are the same whether you grow a small crop or a large one, why not have it as large as possible? Again, if I applied far more manure than was necessary, I ought to have had the crop equally good throughout the field; but on the ridge of the hill, where the soil was thin and poor, neither straw nor wheat were so good as they were where it was deeper and richer. My own opinion is, that the plant is never able to extract from the soil all the manure, and therefore it ought to be brought up to a good standard before good crops can be expected. I am not satisfied with any analogy that I can think of, but the best that occurs to me is that of a cloth in a dye- copper. You can never get it to absorb either all or half the colouring matter, and if you don't use far more than is taken up by the cloth, you will never obtain the desired results. Besides, in chemical combinations it is desirable to use far more than the chemical equivalents, or the experiments don't succeed. I perceive that you intend to use guano next year, and that you intend to use it along with the seed. I trust it will not be sowed in contact with either the seed or the quicklime, which you proposed to use in some of your land. The best time I have found for applying guano is in wet weather, just when vegetation is making a start in the spring—say the last week in March, or the first week in April—as I fear a large part of the soluble portion of it would be washed away by the rains of winter. It is true we have had none this winter, but when shall we have such another? Did you ever use woollen rags as manure? They ought to be excellent, as they are almost all albumen, and are, I fancy, to be had at a very moderate price, not far from you. Can you inform me what it is that causes the land to be clover-sick? If it is the abstraction of something from the soil, what is that something? Sir Humphrey Davy said that a dressing of gypsum would prevent it; but clover does not succeed here (even when dressed with gypsum), if sowed every four years. One reason why I think so small a quantity of manure will not succeed, is based on the theory of excrementitious secretion. Decandolle proved that this secretion took place, but he did not succeed in proving that it poisoned the land for a similar crop. I can only reason from analogy, and it does not follow that an analogy drawn from animal life will hold good when applied to plants; but if we were to feed an animal with pure gluten and pure starch, with the proper quantity of phosphates, &c., are we to suppose it would have no excrements? Let this be applied to plants: are we to suppose that the plant assimilates all that is absorbed by its roots and leaves? When that which is absorbed is what would enter into the composition of the plant, is it not more rational to suppose that the inorganic and gaseous constituents only combine in fixed proportions, and that although the plant may absorb a much larger proportion of one than is required, the surplus is discharged excrementitiously, and perhaps may be unfitted for entering into the plant until it has undergone a decomposition? In conclusion, I trust you will pardon my frankness in so boldly canvassing your opinions; but it is in this collision of opinion that the truth will be elicited, and if I judge you aright, it is that you wish to discover whether it harmonizes with your preconceived notions or not.

* * * * *

LOW MOOR, 1st May, 1845.

HENRY BRIGGS, ESQ.

I duly received your pamphlet on the use of lime, for which I am much obliged, and am delighted to perceive that you confirm the idea (expressed in my pamphlet on the growth of wheat every year on the same land) that the excessive use of lime is ultimately injurious to the fertility of the soil to which it is applied. This, coming from a gentleman of your reputation and experience, will, I hope, induce someone capable of performing the experiment to endeavour to ascertain with precision how much lime it is desirable to apply to an acre to give the best results, and with the least waste, assuming that the land contained little or none previous to the experiment; and it would also be desirable to ascertain whether it is better, in an economical point of view, to apply a small quantity every year, or a larger quantity every third or fourth. My own opinion is in favour of the former method, except that it is difficult to get it ploughed in, particularly in wet weather, immediately after spreading (which is essential where you grow wheat on the same land every year) without injuring the feet of the horses. You speak of ten days or a fortnight being necessary to neutralize caustic lime, but our horses had their feet injured by it six weeks after it had been spread on the land, last year, although the weather had been wet almost the whole of the time, say from the beginning of February to the middle of March. You appear to think that lime will replace silica in the wheat plant. Whose authority have you for this? It will be very important to establish this supposition, but I fear it is too good news to be true. On referring to your letter, I find you don't say what I supposed you did, but that the lime liberates the soluble silicates, potash, &c. This may be, and certainly the beneficial effects of lime in growing wheat are not to be explained by any other hypothesis with which I am acquainted. I am this year trying some experiments to ascertain (if I can) the cause of clover- sickness, and I hope to be in a position to say whether your supposition that lime, gypsum, &c. will prevent it, is correct. My experiments so far are opposed to this theory, but it is not very safe or philosophical to draw conclusions from one or two experiments only. I doubt the possibility of making silicate of soda by merely mixing lime, sand, and salt together, as my chemical friends tell me this cannot be accomplished unless the silex and the alkali are fused together. If a soluble silicate of soda can be made in the way you mention, it will be a great saving of expense. Has it been tried? You have no doubt seen a report of the enormous crop of wheat grown in a field in Norfolk last year (90 bushels to the acre), and that the Royal Agricultural Society have determined to have the soil analyzed by Dr. Playfair. This is very desirable, but as Dr. Playfair is more of a lecturing than an analyzing chemist, I think it is very necessary that his analysis should be checked by another, made by the most eminent chemist that Europe can produce, for 90 bushels is so unheard-of a crop, that no expense should be spared which would enable us to ascertain what the soil contained to enable it to produce such a crop, which is the more remarkable as the field seems to have been a good many years under the plough. As your Wakefield Farmers' Club has many wealthy members in it, allow me to hint the desirableness of your undertaking this analysis, which, if properly performed, will be worth a thousand times more than its cost. When you are aware that even Davy missed 16 per cent. of alumina in one of his analyses and that the chemists of the present day don't seem to have detected the potash which exists so abundantly in potato-tops, you will, I think, agree how exceedingly important it is that such analysis should be checked by others, made without any communication between the parties. You speak of an original letter of Liebig's appearing in the "Farmer's Journal." On what subject is it? as I have no means of referring to the periodical in question. Does it throw any light upon the new manure for which he is said to be taking out a patent? You speak of humus and humic acid. What do you understand by humus? as, according to Liebig, humus sometimes means one thing and sometimes another, and he appears to treat it very much as modern chemists treat phlogiston, as something which they don't comprehend, but which they need to explain the phenomena of vegetation. If you are a believer in humus, what is it composed of, and how does it act in forwarding vegetation? I suppose you will reply, By combining with oxygen and forming humic acid. But would not the theory of the decomposition of carbon do quite as well? I don't perceive the injurious effects of quicklime upon grass land which you anticipate in your paper, but the contrary, and the more caustic it is the more beneficial is its action, so far as I can judge from my own experiments; and it is my practice in liming grass land to spread it as soon as I can get it into the state of flour. I shall be glad to hear the result of your electrical experiment—at present I am rather sceptical on the subject.

P.S.—Am I to suppose that you have abandoned the idea of manuring an acre of wheat for thirteen shillings?

* * * * *

THE CULTIVATION OF WHEAT.

October 1st, 1852.

To the Editor of the "Manchester Guardian."

The increasing quantity of agricultural produce consumed in this country makes it desirable that the cultivation of the land should be carried to the highest point consistent with profit; and the increasing scarcity of agricultural labourers will shortly render it difficult for the farmers in some districts to gather in their crops. It therefore becomes increasingly desirable that every mechanical contrivance which will facilitate their doing so should be made as perfect as possible; and also that the crops themselves should be so cultivated as to make these mechanical aids to work to the greatest advantage.

But it has been a difficult matter (at least in the wet climate of Lancashire) to ascertain how far it is prudent to manure for wheat, for in unfavourable seasons the plant runs so much to straw that it is liable to lodge, and become mildewed; in which cases the manure is not only wasted, but becomes positively injurious, as appears to be the case in the South of England this year, and as was also the case in the North in 1845, when every shilling expended in manuring the wheat crops of that year made the crop at least a shilling worse than if no manure had been applied.

But if we could find a wheat so short in the straw that it would bear heavy manuring without being lodged, wheat-growing would be a far less hazardous occupation than it is at present, and we might confidently calculate on a far greater production than we can now.

The following appear to me to be some of the advantages of growing a short-strawed wheat:—

1st. It will bear highly manuring without lodging, and with much less liability to mildew, than a long-strawed wheat.

2nd. The proportion of grain to straw is greater in short than in long-strawed wheat.

3rd. As it very rarely lodges, it will be far better suited to the reaping-machine than a long-strawed wheat; and no doubt other advantages will occur to the minds of experienced agriculturists.

When making these assertions I ought to state that my experience of wheat-growing does not extend beyond the counties of York and Lancaster, but from what I can learn of the agriculture of more southerly districts, I fancy these opinions of mine will be found correct even there. I may be asked to prove my assertion, and I will endeavour to do so.

I have been experimenting on the growth of wheat for the last ten or eleven years—particularly with reference to the practicability of doing this on the same land year after year; and that I might do it in the most satisfactory manner, I have varied my seed-wheat and my manure very frequently: but I very soon discovered that the advantages of abundance of manure and high cultivation did not insure good crops of wheat, inasmuch as in our moist climate, we had not one summer in five that was favourable, and consequently the crop was generally lodged, and the straw mildewed. I found that the time of sowing, and also of applying the manure, were matters of great importance, and it occurred to me that the remedy would be—a straw so short, that it would not lodge when highly manured. I consequently addressed a query to the "Gardener's Chronicle," asking what was the shortest-strawed variety of wheat known, and was told that Piper's Thickset was so; I therefore got some of this sort from Mr. Piper, which I have cultivated since 1847. It is a coarse red wheat, but the quality has improved with me every year, and this season being the third successive crop on the same land, I have nearly eight quarters to the statute acre from this variety.

2. The proportion of wheat in Piper's Thickset is 38 per cent. of the gross weight of the crop; in the Hopetown wheat (I speak of my own crops only), 34 per cent.

3. Not having seen a reaping-machine, it may seem absurd in me to say that short-strawed wheat is better adapted to it than long- strawed; but every report of the working of these machines goes to show that, so far, they are not well adapted to the cutting of laid corn; therefore a variety that always stands upright will be much better suited to the working of them.

I have been trying for the last six years to obtain (by cross- breeding) a wheat of good quality, and with a straw shorter than Piper's, but hitherto with indifferent success; but, thanks to the kindness of Messrs. Brownells, of Liverpool, who furnished me with many samples of Chilian wheat about three years ago, I have now got varieties much shorter in the straw than Piper's, and some which appear to be of much better quality, but these will require to be tested for a year or two before I can speak decisively about them. The Chilian varieties are very difficult to acclimatize. The original samples were beautiful white wheats, very much resembling the Australian, but when grown in Lancashire they resemble rye more than wheat, and three years' sowing has not much improved them. It has, however, enabled me to obtain crosses which seem better adapted to the soil and climate, and so short in the straw that the highest manuring produces no tendency to lodge.

If we could obtain a variety of wheat of good quality, which, instead of two tons of straw and one of wheat to the acre, produced a ton and a half of each, it might be profitably cultivated, and the differences in the chemical composition of grain and straw are not so very great as to make me despair of this being done some time or other. It may be asked, Where can a short-strawed wheat of good quality be procured? To this I am afraid the reply will be, Nowhere at present. But can none of our expert manipulators, who rejoice exceedingly when they cross-breed a geranium or a fuchsia, turn their attention to the cross-breeding of wheat? Cannot the Royal Agricultural Society offer a premium for a short-strawed wheat of good quality? Do none of the great agriculturists themselves see how desirable such a wheat would be for the agriculture of this country? Apparently not; for with the exception of Mr. Raynbird, of Hampshire, I am not aware of one scientific operator who is endeavouring to produce such a wheat. My own attempts at cross-breeding are such as may be tried by anyone who has sufficient perseverance, and (with one or two exceptions, of doubtful success) have been confined to sowing the different varieties I wished to cross in contiguous drills, and then sowing the produce of these. At the second harvest I carefully select such ears as differ from both varieties, and at the same time seem by their quality of grain and the shortness of their straw to be the best suited to my wishes. It has been, no doubt, to the accidental contact of distinct varieties that we owe the numerous kinds now known to agriculturists, and which differ from each other in colour, quality, yield, and comparative value in the various districts in which they are grown.

Fully sensible of my inability to do justice to this important subject, I yet hope (if you do me the honour to publish my letter) that my remarks may induce scientific men to consider it; for it appears unaccountable to me that hitherto they seem to have thought it unworthy of their attention.

P.S.—There is still time to try the experiment during the present season. If any gentleman wishes to try the short-strawed Chilian wheat, I shall be glad to give him a sample of it for the purpose of cross-breeding. Samples were sent to Mr. H. Briggs, Mr. Raynbird, and Mr. Stevenson, Stockport.

* * * * *

January 27th, 1848.

To the Editor of the "Agricultural Gazette."

You invite persons who have grown good crops of grain or turnips to forward you the particulars. I therefore enclose you an account of an attempt which I made to grow wheat on the same land year after year, that account reaching to the fourth white crop in 1844. As I still continue the experiment, I shall be in a position to continue the account up to the present time (as I am now threshing out the last year's crop), and will send it to you if you think it worthy of insertion in the "Agricultural Gazette."

If the account I now send is not worth inserting, please to send it to your correspondent A. W., who doubted whether there were authenticated instances of land producing eighty, seventy, or even fifty bushels to the acre.

I attribute my success in growing wheat to the use of silicate of soda, and yet, singularly enough, until now I have been unable to induce anyone else to try it. This season, however, several persons have applied to me to procure it for them. Among them is the talented editor of the "Liverpool Times," whose farm at Barton Moss shows what good management will accomplish on very unpromising soils. If, as I hope will be the case, the silicate of soda should supply to peat its greatest deficiency, no one will more readily discover it than Mr. Baines.

In the use of silicates of soda and potash, one precaution is very necessary, namely, that you really have a soluble silicate, not a mere mechanical mixture of ground flint and alkali. This is a very different thing, and one which, if it be not carefully guarded against, will lead to nothing but disappointment.

Again, the silicate of soda may be properly made, in the first instance, but in a long exposure to the atmosphere, the soda attracts carbonic acid, and is liberated from the silex, and this has disappointed my expectation more than once.

Again, though I consider it desirable to defer the application of soluble silicates until vegetation has made a fair start in the spring, yet in one instance I delayed the application of it so long that there was not moisture to dissolve it until the end of June, and then the plant began to send up suckers from the roots, and the crop was seriously injured by it; but this was in an exceedingly dry spring, and may not happen again for many years.

* * * * *

CLITHEROE, March 7th, 1848.

In continuing my attempts to grow wheat on the same land year after year, I observed that the crop of 1845 was very seriously injured by the deficient drainage—the old drains having been destroyed by the subsoil plough. It was therefore necessary to replace them; they were accordingly put in four feet deep. This took up so much time, that the season for sowing wheat had gone by, and the ground was cropped with potatoes, which were dug up in September, and the wheat might have been got in early in October; but seeing in your paper that sowing too early was not advisable, and also being carried away by the arguments of the thin-seeders, I deferred sowing until the middle of November, and also put in little seed, and the weather proving very unfavourable when the wheat was coming up, there was not half plant enough in the spring, and I hesitated whether to plough up the ground or to drill in barley. I determined to do the latter. It was put in on the 18th April, and wheat and barley grew up together, and when cut and threshed, it yielded 48 bushels to the acre.

* * * * *

ON THE GRAVELLING OF CLAY SOILS.

There is an old story of a man, who, having a very stony field, determined to experiment on the value of these stones in the growth of his crops.